The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:choosing in terms of spontaneity
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:choosing in terms of spontaneity
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com" <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:personal judgments.
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
I see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adagechoosing in terms of spontaneity
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:05:45 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:personal judgments.
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
choosing in terms of spontaneityWhat undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinionAhem. You have made some covid related predictions before.
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
They have not come true. If/when this prediction fails, what will that mean?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:05:45 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some
covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people,
resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and
because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who
wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity
being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative
academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which
corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards
conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneity
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while
subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory
appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective
words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and
personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the
spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that
chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Ahem. You have made some covid related predictions before.
They have not come true. If/when this prediction fails, what will that mean?
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:05:45 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some
covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, >> resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and
because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who >> wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity
being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, >> resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative >> academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which >> corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards
conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneity
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while
subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory >> appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective
words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and
personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the
spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that
chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Ahem. You have made some covid related predictions before.
They have not come true. If/when this prediction fails, what will that mean?
Shouldn’t we vaccinees all be going into a state of total immune system meltdown any day now because marginalized subjectivity? It will be swift
and merciless with much gnashing of teeth.
It is bad judgment, when everyone knows that it is possible to happen that the mass vaccination results in a resistant variant, that results in mass death, that they still go ahead and do it.
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:personal judgments.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:personal judgments.
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 03:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is bad judgment, when everyone knows that it is possible to happen that the mass vaccination results in a resistant variant, that results in mass death, that they still go ahead and do it.Resistant variants evolve with or without vaccinations. Vaccinations
reduce deaths and dysfunction resulting from disease. Your argument
is stupid.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.
As far as I know, it is standard practise not to vaccinate during a pandemic. That was also a first, besides other firsts. And then it is mentioned that they vaccinated during small pox pandemic as well, or something, but that is another kind of disease.It was standard practise not to vaccinate during a pandemic.
It's because then there are lots of breakthrough infections, because the vaccination has not matured. Causing the development of viruses that circumvent the vaccination, which then finally leads to mass death.
You quite literally have no care in your reasoning. You are clueless about subjectivity, so then what feels good, is taking over behind the scenes of your argument.
p vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 13:15:47 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 03:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is bad judgment, when everyone knows that it is possible to happen that the mass vaccination results in a resistant variant, that results in mass death, that they still go ahead and do it.Resistant variants evolve with or without vaccinations. Vaccinations
reduce deaths and dysfunction resulting from disease. Your argument
is stupid.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:personal judgments.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body dependent
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:personal judgments.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
personal judgments.Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad
choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept of
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body dependent
bad personal judgments.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making
concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage >> >> >> >> "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body dependent
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
bad personal judgments.Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com" >> >> >> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people making
of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage >> >> >> "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the concept
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious. >> No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people
concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". >> >> >> >> >What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means
. Same as Fauci.dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious. >> >> No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body
nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on
making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people
concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". >> >> >> >> >> >What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means. Same as Fauci.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body
nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on
making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people
concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body
nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on
making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people
concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with the
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent, >> >> but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of >> >> common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body
nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on
making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in people
the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity: >> >> >> >> >> >> >
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion >> >> >> >> >> >> >2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.
One random aspect of the covid catastrophy
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So the attitude,is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore byreligion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of reality
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent, >> >> >> but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of >> >> >> common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body
nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based on
people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in
the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So the
You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do notreligion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics. It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore by
Can you give a few actual examples of this?dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree >> >> >> with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person >> >> >> anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in >> >> >> >> general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-body
on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based
people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in
the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions with
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So the
religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics. >> It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academicculture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore by
body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree >> >> >> >> with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person >> >> >> >> anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in >> >> >> >> >> general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-
on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them, based
people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in
with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective meaning
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So the
religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore by
body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means >> >> >> "Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-
based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them,
people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in
with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions
meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in general,especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good personaljudgment.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So the
religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore by
body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means >> >> >> >> "Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this anti-
based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them,
people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting in
with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only functions
meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in general,
Sounds like a self-portrait.judgment.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good personal
That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So the
religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic >> >> culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore by
anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination. >> >> >also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.
No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this
based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them,
in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting
functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only
meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in general,
judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good personal
attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So the
by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic >> >> >> culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore
anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination. >> >> >> >also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.
No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this
based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them,
in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works, resulting
functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only
meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in general,
judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good personal
the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid >> >> >> nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So
by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not >> >> >> think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up anymore
anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like >> >> >> that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack". >> >> >> >> >> >> >
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this
based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to them,
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only
meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and objective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in general,
personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good
the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid >> >> >> >> nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research. So
anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not >> >> >> >> think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up
anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like >> >> >> >> that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when this
them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only
objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just >> >> repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in general,
personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good
So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have >> >> >> said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research.
anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up
this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when
them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only
objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just >> >> >> repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in
personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good
So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have >> >> >> >> said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research.
anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up
this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when
them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated to
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only
objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does >> >> subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in
personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good
So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out >> >> >> >> anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias research.
anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up
this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease, when
to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity only
objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
And again, everything you say is dishonest.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty. >> That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest orinaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does >> >> >> subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in
personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good
research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out >> >> >> >> >> anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias
anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped up
when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease,
to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude associated
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity
objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think >> >> otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker. >> >> >> How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said >> >> >> >> anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in
personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and good
research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias
up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head. >> >> >> >> >> >> >It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped
when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease,
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity works,
only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity
objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think >> >> >> otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker. >> >> >> >> How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said >> >> >> >> >> anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics in
good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and
research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias
up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not propped
when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease,
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the vaccinated.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity
only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while subjectivity
objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words and
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be >> >> floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers >> >> (and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole. >> >> >> Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you thinkotherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when >> >> >> >> making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics
good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and
research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations? >> >> >> >> >> >Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.
What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations? >> >> >> >> >> >Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias
propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not
when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of disease,
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent that
facts should be ignored".
Which is clearly a lie.
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out. And thenyou have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be >> >> >> floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers >> >> >> (and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole. >> >> >> >> Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you thinkotherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when >> >> >> >> >> making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in academics
good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity, and
research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations? >> >> >> >> >> >> >Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.
What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations? >> >> >> >> >> >> >Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias
propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not
disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective words
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinionThat is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"Well? Why wouldn't you?
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out. And then
That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and >> >> >> decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or >> >> >> inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity,
research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may bias
propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not
disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.
No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how subjectivity
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in[]
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Nando Ronteltap <nando_ronteltap@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there[]
is 1 whole category for facts in
who knows who wrote this?:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
This failure to snip is ridiculous.
PS top-posting is also bad.
However, failure to snip is a frequent problem at talk.origins, not
confined to nutters.
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out. And
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to
understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and >> >> >> >> decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or >> >> >> >> inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity,
bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may
propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not
disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.
No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On 30/07/2023 11:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
However, failure to snip is a frequent problem at talk.origins, not
confined to nutters.
Unfortunately, there are participants, who if you snip their prose, will >accuse you of doing it maliciously.
On 2023-07-30 10:11:21 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there[]
is 1 whole category for facts in
who knows who wrote this?:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
This failure to snip is ridiculous.
PS top-posting is also bad.Yes, but this is Nando. He's a nutter, not subject to normal rules of discourse.
However, failure to snip is a frequent problem at talk.origins, not
confined to nutters.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware of his
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is
best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're
trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out. And
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to
understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that >> >> >> facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever >> >> >> random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given >> >> >> moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions >> >> >> you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity,
bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.
What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may
propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not
disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is
best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're
trying to say.
then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out. And
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to
understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that >> >> facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever >> >> random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given >> >> moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions >> >> you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional maturity,
bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.
What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money, may
propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is not
disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement of
associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of certitude
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the subjective
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:45:58 PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
It is just another lie, there is nothing incoherent in the creationist conceptual scheme. All terms are defined, the logic of it is defined, and all terms locks in together, into one coherent conceptual scheme, without any internal contraditctions.
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
Perhaps what you saw on the news was that Senator Rand Paul (that bastion of common sense and sanity) asked the DOJ to criminally investigate Fauci for lying to Congress. But since he was not actually lying, it's unlikely that that will go anywhere.
But as said, it is a whole culture of dishonesty in academics, and evolutionists are at the center of it. Your lying is the same reason why fauci lies, and the whole bunch around fauci lied too, because you are just
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
It is just another lie, there is nothing incoherent in the creationist conceptual scheme. All terms are defined, the logic of it is defined, and all terms locks in together, into one coherent conceptual scheme, without any internal contraditctions.
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
But as said, it is a whole culture of dishonesty in academics, and evolutionists are at the center of it. Your lying is the same reason why fauci lies, and the whole bunch around fauci lied too, because you are just delusional that you are always doingyour best, by definition. You have diminished awareness of your own subjective spirit human spirit choosing things, which is to say that it is totally absent. So you do not refer your decision making to your true subjective self, you refer your decision
I'm not a liar, you're a liar. That difference matters a lot.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 23:10:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware of
And then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Young Earth Creationism is, in fact, wrong. Old Earth Creationism is impossible to disprove, but it isn't science. Your version of
Creationism isn't even wrong: it's incoherent.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is >> best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're >> trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out.
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to >> >> understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your >> >> >> arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on >> >> >> discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults >> >> >> consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts whenmaking a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
maturity, and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional
may bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >One random aspect of the covid catastrophy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money,
not propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is
of disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.
How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement
certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of
the vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
subjective words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware of
Young Earth Creationism is, in fact, wrong. Old Earth Creationism is impossible to disprove, but it isn't science. Your version ofAnd then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.
Creationism isn't even wrong: it's incoherent.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is
best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're
trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand >> >> your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out.
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to >> >> understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again, >> >> >> that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why? >> >> >> >> >
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,
Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts whenmaking a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
maturity, and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional
may bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >One random aspect of the covid catastrophy
What does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money,
not propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.
It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is
of disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement
certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
subjective words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:45:58 PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:doing your best, by definition. You have diminished awareness of your own subjective spirit human spirit choosing things, which is to say that it is totally absent. So you do not refer your decision making to your true subjective self, you refer your
It is just another lie, there is nothing incoherent in the creationist conceptual scheme. All terms are defined, the logic of it is defined, and all terms locks in together, into one coherent conceptual scheme, without any internal contraditctions.
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.Perhaps what you saw on the news was that Senator Rand Paul (that bastion of common sense and sanity) asked the DOJ to criminally investigate Fauci for lying to Congress. But since he was not actually lying, it's unlikely that that will go anywhere.
But as said, it is a whole culture of dishonesty in academics, and evolutionists are at the center of it. Your lying is the same reason why fauci lies, and the whole bunch around fauci lied too, because you are just delusional that you are always
I'm not a liar, you're a liar. That difference matters a lot.
of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 23:10:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware
And then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Young Earth Creationism is, in fact, wrong. Old Earth Creationism is impossible to disprove, but it isn't science. Your version of Creationism isn't even wrong: it's incoherent.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is
best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're >> trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that >> >> doesn't actually communicate anything.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on >> >> facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
facts should be ignored".
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out.
in academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to
understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on >> >> >> discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes
maturity, and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional
may bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.
What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money,
is not propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people
enhancement of disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent
certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of
the vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
while subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best,
subjective words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
How is fauci not lying about the gain function? How do you construe that to not be a lie? Assuming you know all the relevant facts of the matter.
It seems to me you are just another evolutionist, which means completely dishonest yourself.
And Rand Paul is very good on many issues.
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 18:55:58 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:doing your best, by definition. You have diminished awareness of your own subjective spirit human spirit choosing things, which is to say that it is totally absent. So you do not refer your decision making to your true subjective self, you refer your
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:45:58 PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
It is just another lie, there is nothing incoherent in the creationist conceptual scheme. All terms are defined, the logic of it is defined, and all terms locks in together, into one coherent conceptual scheme, without any internal contraditctions.
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.Perhaps what you saw on the news was that Senator Rand Paul (that bastion of common sense and sanity) asked the DOJ to criminally investigate Fauci for lying to Congress. But since he was not actually lying, it's unlikely that that will go anywhere.
But as said, it is a whole culture of dishonesty in academics, and evolutionists are at the center of it. Your lying is the same reason why fauci lies, and the whole bunch around fauci lied too, because you are just delusional that you are always
I'm not a liar, you're a liar. That difference matters a lot.
of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 23:10:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware
out. And then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Young Earth Creationism is, in fact, wrong. Old Earth Creationism is impossible to disprove, but it isn't science. Your version of Creationism isn't even wrong: it's incoherent.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is
best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're
trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that >> >> doesn't actually communicate anything.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on >> >> facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
facts should be ignored".
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn
That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to
understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent). >> >> >> >And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.
I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue. >> >> >> >
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.
in academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes
maturity, and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional
money, may bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.
Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophyWhat does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for
people is not propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic
enhancement of disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent
certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of
among the vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death,
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
while subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best,
subjective words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
It is just another lie, there is nothing incoherent in the creationist conceptual scheme.
All terms are defined,
the logic of it is defined, and all terms locks in together, into one coherent conceptual scheme, without any internal contraditctions.
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
But as said, it is a whole culture of dishonesty in academics, and evolutionists are at the center of it.
Your lying is the same reason why fauci lies, and the whole bunch around fauci lied too, because you are just delusional that you are always doing your best, by definition.
You have diminished awareness of your own subjective spirit human spirit choosing things, which is to say that it is totally absent.
So you do not refer your decision making to your true subjective self, you refer your decision making to some objective stuff in the brain, some objective thing.
It was the fault of that objective thing, and never are you yourself to blame for anything.
I'm not a liar, you're a liar. That difference matters a lot.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 23:10:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware of
And then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Young Earth Creationism is, in fact, wrong. Old Earth Creationism is
impossible to disprove, but it isn't science. Your version of
Creationism isn't even wrong: it's incoherent.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is
best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're
trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand >> >> >> your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out.
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to >> >> >> understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your
arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on
discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again, >> >> >> >> that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults
consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why? >> >> >> >> >> >
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,
Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts whenmaking a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
maturity, and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional
may bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >One random aspect of the covid catastrophy
What does that have to do with academics?
is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money,
not propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.
It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people is
of disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this?
The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent enhancement
certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of
vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among the
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
subjective words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is just another lie, there is nothing incoherent in the creationist conceptual scheme.It is completely unintelligible to anyone who isn't you.
All terms are defined,
That's problem #1: you keep insisting on using your own personal
definitions for common English words. It has been pointed out many
times that this makes it almost impossible to figure out what you're
trying to say. Has it ever occurred to you to stop doing that? It
should, if you want anyone else in the world to understand what the
hell you mean.
the logic of it is defined, and all terms locks in together, into one coherent conceptual scheme, without any internal contraditctions.No, what you have are ten words grouped into two lines of five words
each THAT DON'T ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AS PHRASED TO ANYONE BUT
YOU. You may as well pick words out of a dictionary at random: it
would have the same semantic content as your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme".
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying. LOL! By crackpot Rand Paul, and it will go nowhere.How so?
But as said, it is a whole culture of dishonesty in academics, and evolutionists are at the center of it.
Your lying is the same reason why fauci lies, and the whole bunch around fauci lied too, because you are just delusional that you are always doing your best, by definition.I'm just curious: when you start typing a sentence, do you have any
idea how it's going to come out? The last clause has literally no
connection to the first two, or to reality in general.
You have diminished awareness of your own subjective spirit human spirit choosing things, which is to say that it is totally absent.Word salad. Try again.
So you do not refer your decision making to your true subjective self, you refer your decision making to some objective stuff in the brain, some objective thing.What objective thing? Be specific.
It was the fault of that objective thing, and never are you yourself to blame for anything.Again, what objective thing? A tumor? That would be objective. I
literally have no idea what you think you mean.
I'm not a liar, you're a liar. That difference matters a lot.I have said nothing untrue. I'm sure that you're very sincere about
what you're saying as well, but the problem is that your thoughts are
as scattered as leaves in a hurricane, so they rarely connect with
each other.
his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 23:10:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware of
And then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Young Earth Creationism is, in fact, wrong. Old Earth Creationism is
impossible to disprove, but it isn't science. Your version of
Creationism isn't even wrong: it's incoherent.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is >> >> best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're >> >> trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out.
academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to
understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your >> >> >> >> arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on >> >> >> >> discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults >> >> >> >> consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes in
maturity, and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional
may bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What does that have to do with academics? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money,
is not propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people
enhancement of disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.
How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent
certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of
the vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best, while
subjective words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Some more lies here, that the creationist conceptual scheme does not follow the logic as used in common discourse,
that I use these words in a new way, with a different logic thanusual. That's another lie.
Ofcourse I have explained all the words many times to you, how they are used,
so that is just another lie that it is just a bunch of unconnected words.
I see your bad judgment that Rand Paul is a crackpot, it must mean you are terrible at making personal opinions.
The rest of what you write is also dishonest in various ways.
You're still a liar. You have definitely said many things that are untrue.
And the rest of what you said is misleading.
It is just the same thing as any crazy ideologist, like a nazi or communist, based on mishandling the psychological pressure to do your best.
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 22:35:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is just another lie, there is nothing incoherent in the creationist conceptual scheme.It is completely unintelligible to anyone who isn't you.
All terms are defined,
That's problem #1: you keep insisting on using your own personal
definitions for common English words. It has been pointed out many
times that this makes it almost impossible to figure out what you're
trying to say. Has it ever occurred to you to stop doing that? It
should, if you want anyone else in the world to understand what the
hell you mean.
the logic of it is defined, and all terms locks in together, into one coherent conceptual scheme, without any internal contraditctions.No, what you have are ten words grouped into two lines of five words
each THAT DON'T ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AS PHRASED TO ANYONE BUT
YOU. You may as well pick words out of a dictionary at random: it
would have the same semantic content as your "Creationist Conceptual
Scheme".
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying. >> LOL! By crackpot Rand Paul, and it will go nowhere.How so?
But as said, it is a whole culture of dishonesty in academics, and evolutionists are at the center of it.
Your lying is the same reason why fauci lies, and the whole bunch around fauci lied too, because you are just delusional that you are always doing your best, by definition.I'm just curious: when you start typing a sentence, do you have any
idea how it's going to come out? The last clause has literally no
connection to the first two, or to reality in general.
You have diminished awareness of your own subjective spirit human spirit choosing things, which is to say that it is totally absent.Word salad. Try again.
So you do not refer your decision making to your true subjective self, you refer your decision making to some objective stuff in the brain, some objective thing.What objective thing? Be specific.
It was the fault of that objective thing, and never are you yourself to blame for anything.Again, what objective thing? A tumor? That would be objective. I
literally have no idea what you think you mean.
I'm not a liar, you're a liar. That difference matters a lot.I have said nothing untrue. I'm sure that you're very sincere about
what you're saying as well, but the problem is that your thoughts are
as scattered as leaves in a hurricane, so they rarely connect with
each other.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 23:10:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is repeated lying. You are channelling fauci, who lied about financing gain of function research, and lied about covid coming from the wet market.
You are just another fucking liar. And it is now in academics, widespread lying. Because it was not just Fauci that lied about things, there was a bunch of them.
It is a cultural thing of diminished conscience, of the people who are delusional that they are always doing their best, by definition. Get fauci for a court of law, for killing millions of people, he will say, he did the best he could. >Unaware
And then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Young Earth Creationism is, in fact, wrong. Old Earth Creationism is
impossible to disprove, but it isn't science. Your version of
Creationism isn't even wrong: it's incoherent.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 18:00:57 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is a lie that based on creationism, facts are ignored, because there is 1 whole category for facts in creationism.And you have consistently argued against using facts in making
decisions.
It is also a lie that you cannot choose in terms of what is best with creationism. It is just a complicated way of choosing in creationism.You have repeatedly denounced the idea of choosing in terms of what is >> >> >> best.
You are a liar. You just lie, you don't care about the truth. You are just computing an optimal move, an optimal thing what to say in order to reach your goal, regardless that it is a lie.You are hopelessly confused about whatever the hell it is that you're >> >> >> trying to say.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 21:15:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Here's the creationist conceptual scheme:That is not a conceptual scheme. It's a collection of words that
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
doesn't actually communicate anything.
So that is one whole category for facts. And then you lie "why you're so insistent thatYou have repeatedly argued that decisions should not be based on
facts should be ignored".
facts, but on spontaneous emotion.
Which is clearly a lie.No, you have consistently argued just that.
Well? Why wouldn't you?
Then you also dishonestly ask: "Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision?"
It is just about the fundamental definition of choosing, that is correct in terms of spontaneity, and wrong in terms of figuring out what is best.In other words, disregarding facts. You don't even seem to understand
your own arguments.
You can still choose in terms of what is best, using the definition of choosing in terms of spontaneity. Then you first have to choose every possiblity in your mind, which generates options, so that you can imagine which way things turn out.
in academics in general, especially with evolutionists. Ignorance about subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, mental illness, and weird ideology.That is the antithesis of spontaneity. Again, you don't even seem to
understand your own arguments.
Literally everything you say is lying, dishonesty.The problem here is not that I am dishonest, but that you are
hopelessly confused.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 20:35:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're just another total asshole among the many millions of assholes that have been, like communists, nazis, ordinary criminals, and what have you.I repeat my previous question: May I ask why you're so insistent that
Starting from psychological pressure to do your best, then define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, instead of in terms of spontaneity.
facts should be ignored, and decisions made solely based on whatever
random emotion happens to be floating through your brain at any given
moment? That's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions.
Consequently the concept of subjectivity is also corrupted, because it depends on the concept of decision.Complete and utter nonsense.
Then the idea about emotions, personal character also becomes corrupted, because they depend on subjectivity.How so?
And conscience is dysfunctional, because no matter what you choose, it is per definition always for the best, or your best.Why wouldn't you *want* to make the best possible decision? Your >> >> >> >> >> arguments are literally senseless (where they are coherent).
And then your choosing degenerates to like a chesscomputer calculating a move. A soulless machine calculating an optimum, because you thrown out any place for emotions.I have never done so. What I have done is ask why you insist on >> >> >> >> >> discarding facts, and making decisions *solely* on whatever emotions
you happen to have passing through your brain at the moment. Again,
that's how toddlers (and felons) make decisions. Rational adults >> >> >> >> >> consider facts as well as feelings.
And then you are responding not in an honest way, you are responding in this goalbased calculating way.Fascinating. What do you think my goal is?
That you just say whatever is optimal to win the chessgame, regardless if it is honest or not, regardless if it is true or not.I have said nothing that is in any way dishonest or untrue.
Op zaterdag 29 juli 2023 om 18:10:56 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
And again, everything you say is dishonest.As always, you refuse to answer even the simplest question. Why?
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 22:20:55 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As always, the basic error is to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of in terms of spontaneity.May I ask why you're so insistent that facts should be ignored, and
decisions made solely based on whatever random emotion happens to be
floating through your brain at any given moment? That's how toddlers
(and felons) make decisions.
From there you get the pattern of corruption, including your dishonesty.That doesn't follow. And again, nothing I have said is dishonest or
inaccurate.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 16:55:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Near perfect dishonesty, you are striving to be a perfect asshole.Yawn. Again, nothing I said is incorrect or inaccurate. If you think
otherwise, then POINT OUT MY ERROR.
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2023 om 00:15:54 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The clowm, clowns around some more. You share in the blame for causing this crisis in culture.How so?
Especially the atheists everywhere, always obsessed with facts, and disregarding subjectivity.Ignoring facts seems a pretty stupid approach to life.
You obviously have a much diminished awareness of your own identity as a decision maker,Nonsense.
which is why you do not consider things responsibly.It would be the epitome of irresponsibility to ignore facts when
making a decision.
You are incapable to, because of your rejection of all what is subjective, which includes rejection of yourself as being a decision maker.I do not reject either subjectivity, or myself as a decision maker.
How many times do I have to repeat that? And again, what the hell does
subjectivity have to do with vaccines?
Op woensdag 26 juli 2023 om 18:00:53 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The people who define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, always think they did their best, because they have defined it that way. But you are dishonest, regardless of your fake delusion that you did your best.This is already getting tedious. Again, if you think I have said
anything dishonest or otherwise untrue, POINT IT OUT, instead of just
repeating yourself.
The conservatives are not wrong to pinpoint the source of wokeness, on the universities, on academics. It is just, ignorance about subjectivity, which I have documented countless times on the internet, and in broad scopes
maturity, and good personal judgment.Sounds like a self-portrait.
It is pefectly obvious when the reality of all what is inherently subjective, is held in a continuous state of doubt, and denial, because of it not being objective, that it is impossible for such people to have emotional
may bias research. So the attitude, is to minimize subjectivity. But subjectivity like patience, carefulness, effort, honesty, humility, you actually need those things to do good research, and to have a good judgment.That isn't "obvious" at all. It's barely even coherent.
Fauci lying, cheating, causing people to die, it is from the academic culture where subjectivity is disregarded.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Fauci obviously considers that everything he did was for the best. The covid catastrophy is coming back again, because there is no herd immunity, and the defense of the vaccinated is feeble.What the hell does subjectivity have to do with vaccinations?
Op dinsdag 25 juli 2023 om 03:05:51 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you have no honesty whatsoever.Yawn. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't make it so. I have
said nothing inaccurate or untrue. Please feel free to point out
anywhere you may imagine that I did.
Op maandag 24 juli 2023 om 20:00:50 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You make bad judgments. The entire subjective part of reality is held in a mist, in academics.What is that even supposed to mean?
No clearcut acknowledgement of it, but instead sardonic atheistic denial of any of it.No one denies the concept of subjectivity. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense with no connection to reality.
Causing a lack of honesty, causing bad judgments, by masses of people in academics.Can you give some specific examples of this?
One random aspect of the covid catastrophy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What does that have to do with academics? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is that, with mrna you cannot control the dosage. The mrna goes into the cells, producing the spikes, the cells have the control over how many spikes are produced. Bad judgment to not control the dosage.What are you talking about?
The reasoning of academic people falls short, because they do not pay attention to the role subjectivity plays in reasoning. Usually the academics just only acknowledges subjectivity is bad, as in incentives for money,
is not propped up anymore by religion. Now I see all the time on the news, weird professors, who have crazy personal judgments, on any issue.You have some very weird examples of "subjectivity" there. I do not
think the word means what you think it means.
It is very clear that emotions are surpressed in the culture in academics.It is very clear that you have less than no acquaintance with academic
culture, and are just making things up out of your head.
It has long been a stereotype of academics that they are bad to deal with emotions. But religion used to still be powerful a few decades ago. Now religion is not powerful, and the personal judgment of academic people
enhancement of disease, when this anti-body dependent enhancement of infectiousness has run it's course. When all the variations that exploit infectiousness have run their course, the virus will inevitably start looking to infect the body more deeply.Can you give a few actual examples of this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The way you argue, the way all evolutionists make argument, is devoid of a healthy emotional basis.
How so?
That you have no honesty to deal with the issue of subjectivity, also means you have no honesty to deal with covid.How so?
That you want the entire subjective part of reality to just go away, and argue towards that,Literally no one is arguing towards that, except in your imagination.
also means you want all opinions against vaccination to go away, and argue towards that.No one has done that here either.
It is absolutely never going to work out ok, to not have intellectual acknoweldgement of the subjective part of realityNo one is denying subjectivity.
. It is always going to be a catastrophy. The truth is very simple, be ignorant about how subjectivity works, therefore produce bad personal opinions.It's hilarious that you keep trying to objectify subjectivity like
that.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 17:15:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You don't know. You went out of your way, not to know what honesty is, and now, you don't know. You have the success of your intentional stupidity.Well, that meltdown took less time than usual.
Op zondag 23 juli 2023 om 04:40:49 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ofcourse you are completely clueless about what being honest means"Stating facts" is a pretty workable definition.
Your move,
. Same as Fauci.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 21:40:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Well, you keep on being a liar. You always bring total crap as your emotional basis, to an argument. No honesty whatsoever.I am being entirely honest: you are obsessed to a near-manic degree
with "how subjectivity works" (your ideas about this are incoherent,
but that's another topic), and you are very likely the only person
anywhere who thinks that "how subjectivity works" is either "part of
common discourse" or is somehow "under widescale attack".
p zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 17:45:48 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You're so dumb. The truth of how subjectivity works is quite obvious in common discourse."How subjectivity works" is not a part of "common discourse" in
general. It's your own weird obsession.
The truth that this idea is under widescale attack is likewise obvious.No, it isn't, to anyone not named Nando.
And for the covid, that is a bit more complex, but it is obvious that there is no herd immunity, and the variations are exploding. So that cannot end well.
Before it was anti-body dependent enhancement of infection, as what enabled infectiousness, but also protected the vaccinated from severe disease. But in the end it will go to anti-body dependent
certitude associated to them, based on nothing.
Neither you nor Jillery, has any carefulness, in their reasoning. No awareness that subjectivity even matters, for objective issues. You have your very typical pronouncements, with too much feelings of
the vaccinated.
Op zaterdag 22 juli 2023 om 06:05:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
That is obviously a lie, you know better than that. The concept of subjectivity, is in crisis.That is your personal, obsessive delusion.
Op vrijdag 21 juli 2023 om 17:25:47 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It cannot be blamed on individuals alone, like Fauci, because there are too many people involved in doing it, too many countries. So it is a cultural problem.It's a non-existent problem.
Op woensdag 19 juli 2023 om 20:10:45 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The doom prediction is that at the end of the summer, begin fall, some covid variant will arise that escapes the defense of vaccinated people, resulting in severe covid disease, mass death, among
subjectivity works, resulting in people making bad personal judgments.
I think it is likely true, because there is no herd immunity, and because the variants have been exploding for some time already.
I believe the cause of this catastrophy is not some nefarious elite who wants to depopulate, but it is caused by the concept of subjectivity being marginalized. It is simply ignorance about how
while subjectivity only functions with the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneityI see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
What undermines people's understanding of subjectivity:
1. Lack of interest in the concept of subjectivity, absent authoritative academic expertise on it.
2. People mishandling the psychological pressure to do their best, which corrupts the understanding of what it means to choose, towards conceiving of it in terms of figuring out what is best,
subjective words and objective meaning
3. Education conditioning the mind towards objectivity
4. Evolution theory held in opposition to creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. And evolution theory appropiating subjective terminology, and re-assigning the
5. Neuroscience asserting, or giving the impression, that emotions and personal character can be measured in the brain.
6. Various ideologies opposing understanding of it, like atheism, materialism, socialism
Subjectivity is explained by the phrase, the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.
Which means the subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. As can be seen in the creationist conceptual scheme.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works, you don'tcare whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:t care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works, you don'
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
Uh no, no cite, you can read.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.
You say these insane things.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.
So a perfect asshole.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works, you
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.
Then your untrue idea about mutations of viruses
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity.
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works, you
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you >> >> >> do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE. >> >> >> >It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.
If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE >> >> >> of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like >> >> >> >> always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.What a bizarre claim.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works, you
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you >> >> do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE. >> >> >It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.
If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE >> >> of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like >> >> >> always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.infection and disease.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement of
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent enhancement,and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be exhausted,leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is,
as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity.Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect is
going to increase the number of variants that can infect both the
vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not
grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're
trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works,
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an >> >> >> abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but >> >> >> >> you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good >> >> >> >> indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is,
as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity. Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect isgoing to increase the number of variants that can infect both the
vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not
grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works,
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an >> >> abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but >> >> >> you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good >> >> >> indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
Look at the title of this topic. Again, obtuse.
Aren't all the laws of physics abstract concepts?
Don't they have a way in which they work?
Aren't any games like chess just abstract, with their own rules?
There are obviously rules for objectivity,
and the scientific method, expands on those rules to get a higher degree of reliability.
And there are also rules for subjectivity, very obviously. You are really going out of your mind.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 21:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:infection and disease.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement of
enhancement, and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.Where are you getting this from?
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent
leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.Where are you getting this from?
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be exhausted,
works, you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works, >> >> >> >> I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how anWhere are you getting this from?
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.Again, the notion that abstract concepts have "rules" as to "how they
work" is apparently your own novel invention.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is,
as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity. >> >> Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect isgoing to increase the number of variants that can infect both the
vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not
grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're
trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my >> >> >> part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how >> >> >> an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you >> >> >> have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your >> >> >> own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations >> >> >> will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of >> >> >> people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"... >> >> >> >Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.
How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago. >> >> >> >> Citation please.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error. >> >> >> >> > you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.
Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously. >> >> >> >> >> Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:infection and disease.
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement of
Where are you getting this from?and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent enhancement,
Where are you getting this from?leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be exhausted,
Where are you getting this from?
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.Again, the notion that abstract concepts have "rules" as to "how they
work" is apparently your own novel invention.
you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is,
as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity. >> Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect isgoing to increase the number of variants that can infect both the
vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not
grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're
trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my >> >> part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how >> >> an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you >> >> have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your >> >> own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations >> >> will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of >> >> people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"... >> >> >Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.
How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago. >> >> >> Citation please.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity works,
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error. >> >> >> > you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.
Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously. >> >> >> >> Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:infection and disease.
Look at the title of this topic. Again, obtuse.No, just unable to follow your thoughts as you randomly drift from one
topic to another without rhyme or reason. So basically, you're getting
this from an anti-vax crank. Got it.
Aren't all the laws of physics abstract concepts?Not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract" or "concepts".
Don't they have a way in which they work?Laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works, not
abstract concepts.
Aren't any games like chess just abstract, with their own rules?Again, not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract".
There are obviously rules for objectivity,The scientific method is a way of arriving at objectivity. You're
and the scientific method, expands on those rules to get a higher degree of reliability.
putting the cart before the horse.
And there are also rules for subjectivity, very obviously. You are really going out of your mind.I'm sure that reading too many of your posts can lead to that.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 21:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement of
enhancement, and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.Where are you getting this from?
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent
leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.Where are you getting this from?
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be exhausted,
works, you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,Where are you getting this from?
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.Again, the notion that abstract concepts have "rules" as to "how they
work" is apparently your own novel invention.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is, >> >> as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that >> >> sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that >> >> sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity.Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect is >> >> going to increase the number of variants that can infect both the
vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not >> >> grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're >> >> trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong. >> >> >Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using >> >> >> here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
You have a crazy judgment on everything. Do you drink from the toilet bowl?
I have no clue how you arrived at the insanity, that there is no how it works to either subjectivity, or objectivity.
I mean, I have a clue that it starts with redefining choosing in terms of figuring out what is best
, and then there is a pattern of corruption, but there is also a total mess, because it is not functional logic.
And from this total mess you apparently felt the need to deny that there are rules for subjectivity and objectivity.
This topic is about the doom prediction of mr vanden Bossche.
And then ofcourse, I relate that to a culture of bad judgment in academics, caused by marginalization of subjectivity in academics.
It is not jumping from here to there.
Literally everything you say is wrong, and mindless.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 00:01:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:infection and disease.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Look at the title of this topic. Again, obtuse.No, just unable to follow your thoughts as you randomly drift from one
topic to another without rhyme or reason. So basically, you're getting
this from an anti-vax crank. Got it.
Aren't all the laws of physics abstract concepts?Not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract" or "concepts".
Don't they have a way in which they work?Laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works, not
abstract concepts.
Aren't any games like chess just abstract, with their own rules?Again, not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract".
There are obviously rules for objectivity,The scientific method is a way of arriving at objectivity. You're
and the scientific method, expands on those rules to get a higher degree of reliability.
putting the cart before the horse.
And there are also rules for subjectivity, very obviously. You are really going out of your mind.I'm sure that reading too many of your posts can lead to that.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 21:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement of
enhancement, and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.Where are you getting this from?
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent
leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.Where are you getting this from?
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be exhausted,
works, you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works, >> >> >> >> >> I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how anWhere are you getting this from?
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.Again, the notion that abstract concepts have "rules" as to "how they
work" is apparently your own novel invention.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is, >> >> >> as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that >> >> >> sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that >> >> >> sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity.Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect is >> >> >> going to increase the number of variants that can infect both the
vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not >> >> >> grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're >> >> >> trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong. >> >> >> >Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using >> >> >> >> here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:infection and disease.
You have a crazy judgment on everything. Do you drink from the toilet bowl? >I have no clue how you arrived at the insanity, that there is no how it works to either subjectivity, or objectivity.I have no clue why you think that abstract concepts have "rules" as to
"how they work". It seems to me that you have literally no idea what "abstract" or "concept" mean in English to anyone who isn't you.
I mean, I have a clue that it starts with redefining choosing in terms of figuring out what is bestNo one is "redefining" anything here except you. That a prudent person
will WANT to make the best possible choice in a given situation is an observation, not part of the definition. You're always free to make
stupid choices, but WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO?
, and then there is a pattern of corruption, but there is also a total mess, because it is not functional logic.Nothing you write has the slightest connection to logic.
And from this total mess you apparently felt the need to deny that there are rules for subjectivity and objectivity.WHY DO YOU THINK THAT ABSTRACT CONCEPTS HAVE "RULES"??
This topic is about the doom prediction of mr vanden Bossche.It went far, far astray from that.
And then ofcourse, I relate that to a culture of bad judgment in academics, caused by marginalization of subjectivity in academics.Yes, of course you do. WHY you do something so ridiculous and
disconnected from reality is known only to you.
It is not jumping from here to there.Oh please. You have the attention span of a mayfly. Figuring out where
your thoughts are at the moment, or where you're going with them, is anyone's guess.
Literally everything you say is wrong, and mindless.Sure. You're not crazy, everyone else but you is crazy. Makes sense.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 00:01:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Look at the title of this topic. Again, obtuse.No, just unable to follow your thoughts as you randomly drift from one
topic to another without rhyme or reason. So basically, you're getting
this from an anti-vax crank. Got it.
Aren't all the laws of physics abstract concepts?Not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract" or "concepts".
Don't they have a way in which they work?Laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works, not
abstract concepts.
Aren't any games like chess just abstract, with their own rules?Again, not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract".
There are obviously rules for objectivity,The scientific method is a way of arriving at objectivity. You're
and the scientific method, expands on those rules to get a higher degree of reliability.
putting the cart before the horse.
And there are also rules for subjectivity, very obviously. You are really going out of your mind.I'm sure that reading too many of your posts can lead to that.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 21:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement of
enhancement, and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.Where are you getting this from?
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent
leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.Where are you getting this from?
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be exhausted,
works, you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,Where are you getting this from?
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.Again, the notion that abstract concepts have "rules" as to "how they >> >> work" is apparently your own novel invention.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is,
as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity.Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect is
going to increase the number of variants that can infect both the >> >> >> vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not
grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're
trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and >> >> >> >> "works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules". >> >> >> >> >You are emancipated as being a total asshole.
Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how subjectivity
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,
resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivity
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization ofsubjectivity on the intellectual level.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:infection and disease.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You have a crazy judgment on everything. Do you drink from the toilet bowl? >> >I have no clue how you arrived at the insanity, that there is no how it works to either subjectivity, or objectivity.I have no clue why you think that abstract concepts have "rules" as to
"how they work". It seems to me that you have literally no idea what
"abstract" or "concept" mean in English to anyone who isn't you.
I mean, I have a clue that it starts with redefining choosing in terms of figuring out what is bestNo one is "redefining" anything here except you. That a prudent person
will WANT to make the best possible choice in a given situation is an
observation, not part of the definition. You're always free to make
stupid choices, but WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO?
, and then there is a pattern of corruption, but there is also a total mess, because it is not functional logic.Nothing you write has the slightest connection to logic.
And from this total mess you apparently felt the need to deny that there are rules for subjectivity and objectivity.WHY DO YOU THINK THAT ABSTRACT CONCEPTS HAVE "RULES"??
This topic is about the doom prediction of mr vanden Bossche.It went far, far astray from that.
And then ofcourse, I relate that to a culture of bad judgment in academics, caused by marginalization of subjectivity in academics.Yes, of course you do. WHY you do something so ridiculous and
disconnected from reality is known only to you.
It is not jumping from here to there.Oh please. You have the attention span of a mayfly. Figuring out where
your thoughts are at the moment, or where you're going with them, is
anyone's guess.
Literally everything you say is wrong, and mindless.Sure. You're not crazy, everyone else but you is crazy. Makes sense.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 00:01:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Look at the title of this topic. Again, obtuse.No, just unable to follow your thoughts as you randomly drift from one
topic to another without rhyme or reason. So basically, you're getting
this from an anti-vax crank. Got it.
Aren't all the laws of physics abstract concepts?Not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract" or "concepts".
Don't they have a way in which they work?Laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works, not
abstract concepts.
Aren't any games like chess just abstract, with their own rules?Again, not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract".
There are obviously rules for objectivity,The scientific method is a way of arriving at objectivity. You're
and the scientific method, expands on those rules to get a higher degree of reliability.
putting the cart before the horse.
And there are also rules for subjectivity, very obviously. You are really going out of your mind.I'm sure that reading too many of your posts can lead to that.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 21:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement of
enhancement, and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.Where are you getting this from?
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent
leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.Where are you getting this from?
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be exhausted,
subjectivity works, you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,Where are you getting this from?
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.Again, the notion that abstract concepts have "rules" as to "how they >> >> >> work" is apparently your own novel invention.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is,
as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity.Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect is
going to increase the number of variants that can infect both the >> >> >> >> vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not
grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is
subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're
trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and >> >> >> >> >> "works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules". >> >> >> >> >> >You are emancipated as being a total asshole.
Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines?
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how
I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:subjectivity on the intellectual level.
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.It's cute that you think that.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.I see that "function" is another word you have your own personal
definition for...
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.That you attempt to set rules for "how subjectivity works" would
strongly suggest that you yourself hold that position. At least if I understand what you're trying to say there.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.No, that isn't "obvious" at all. And why would someone go "looking for
the truth" about subjectivity in the first place? How exactly would
one do that, and what, exactly, is this "truth" about it that you're
looking for? And don't give me nonsense about "how it works". It's a concept: asking how it "works" is a category error.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.Disagreeing with you is not "lying".
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.Most people who aren't nuts would WANT to choose the best option, but
it is NOT an essential part of the definition of choosing. As I have
noted many times, you are free to make stupid choices, as I'm sure the editors at both Google and the OED would readily agree, but WHY WOULD
YOU WANT TO?
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment.Yawn. Again, disagreeing with you is not lying.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,It's a concept. It doesn't "work", or "do" anything, it simply "is". >resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things.
"The subjective spirit choosing things" is nonsensical woo-woo. People
make choices. "Spirits" don't come into it.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivityWhat does that even mean?
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.GIGO.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.I blame the deaths on the virus. And you?
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization of
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:subjectivity on the intellectual level.
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.It's cute that you think that.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.I see that "function" is another word you have your own personal
definition for...
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.That you attempt to set rules for "how subjectivity works" would
strongly suggest that you yourself hold that position. At least if I understand what you're trying to say there.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.No, that isn't "obvious" at all. And why would someone go "looking for
the truth" about subjectivity in the first place? How exactly would
one do that, and what, exactly, is this "truth" about it that you're
looking for? And don't give me nonsense about "how it works". It's a concept: asking how it "works" is a category error.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.Disagreeing with you is not "lying".
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.Most people who aren't nuts would WANT to choose the best option, but
it is NOT an essential part of the definition of choosing. As I have
noted many times, you are free to make stupid choices, as I'm sure the editors at both Google and the OED would readily agree, but WHY WOULD
YOU WANT TO?
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment.Yawn. Again, disagreeing with you is not lying.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,It's a concept. It doesn't "work", or "do" anything, it simply "is". >resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things.
"The subjective spirit choosing things" is nonsensical woo-woo. People
make choices. "Spirits" don't come into it.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivityWhat does that even mean?
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.GIGO.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.I blame the deaths on the virus. And you?
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization of
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw.of infection and disease.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You have a crazy judgment on everything. Do you drink from the toilet bowl?I have no clue why you think that abstract concepts have "rules" as to
I have no clue how you arrived at the insanity, that there is no how it works to either subjectivity, or objectivity.
"how they work". It seems to me that you have literally no idea what
"abstract" or "concept" mean in English to anyone who isn't you.
I mean, I have a clue that it starts with redefining choosing in terms of figuring out what is bestNo one is "redefining" anything here except you. That a prudent person
will WANT to make the best possible choice in a given situation is an
observation, not part of the definition. You're always free to make
stupid choices, but WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO?
, and then there is a pattern of corruption, but there is also a total mess, because it is not functional logic.Nothing you write has the slightest connection to logic.
And from this total mess you apparently felt the need to deny that there are rules for subjectivity and objectivity.WHY DO YOU THINK THAT ABSTRACT CONCEPTS HAVE "RULES"??
This topic is about the doom prediction of mr vanden Bossche.It went far, far astray from that.
And then ofcourse, I relate that to a culture of bad judgment in academics, caused by marginalization of subjectivity in academics.Yes, of course you do. WHY you do something so ridiculous and
disconnected from reality is known only to you.
It is not jumping from here to there.Oh please. You have the attention span of a mayfly. Figuring out where
your thoughts are at the moment, or where you're going with them, is
anyone's guess.
Literally everything you say is wrong, and mindless.Sure. You're not crazy, everyone else but you is crazy. Makes sense.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 00:01:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Look at the title of this topic. Again, obtuse.No, just unable to follow your thoughts as you randomly drift from one >> >> topic to another without rhyme or reason. So basically, you're getting >> >> this from an anti-vax crank. Got it.
Aren't all the laws of physics abstract concepts?Not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract" or "concepts".
Don't they have a way in which they work?Laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works, not
abstract concepts.
Aren't any games like chess just abstract, with their own rules?Again, not for any non-Nando definitions of "abstract".
There are obviously rules for objectivity,The scientific method is a way of arriving at objectivity. You're
and the scientific method, expands on those rules to get a higher degree of reliability.
putting the cart before the horse.
And there are also rules for subjectivity, very obviously. You are really going out of your mind.I'm sure that reading too many of your posts can lead to that.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 21:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It's already known for quite some time that the vaccinations don't produce the defense to kill the virus.
Because vaccination during a pandemic, causes the virus to infect people who have an immature vaccination, and the virus then can easily break through this feeble defense, and adapt to it. Which somehow causes anti body dependent enhancement
enhancement, and now it is breaking down the last defenses, untill finally, it will start infecting the lungs and other organs, of the vaccinated.Where are you getting this from?
Now there is an explosion of mutations of the virus, caused by the vaccinated, because the virus is adapting to other anti-bodies than those directed against the spike. So the virus has a hold on the vaccinated, with the antibody dependent
exhausted, leading to all kinds of other diseases that the general purpose T cells don't control anymore.Where are you getting this from?
Unvaccinated are simply killing the virus, with a trained innate immune system. That doesn't cause any significant mutation. The vaccinated are using general purpose T-cells to get rid of the virus. A feeble defense that can easily be
subjectivity works, you don't care whether or not people understand how subjectivity works,Where are you getting this from?
Everything you say, is not geared towards the truth. Your idea that there are no rules for subjectivity, or objectivity for that matter, is something you just made up, not for finding the truth, but just to get rid of an issue.Again, the notion that abstract concepts have "rules" as to "how they
work" is apparently your own novel invention.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 19:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Everything you say, is insane. Your insistence I cite where I called you out on your lies, while you can just read the post before in this thread. That's not sane.Which of the dozens of posts above are you referring to?
Your idea that abstract concepts don't have rules how they work. Insane again.The notion that abstract concepts have rules about how they work is,
as far as I can tell, unique to you.
To say it is wordsalad that you are emancipated as being an asshole. Again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "emancipate" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Your total and utter lie that neither you, nor anyone else, rejects all what is subjective. That's insane. It is all over the place on facebook, and in history.Give one example.
To say that the "proposition" of vaccination, is not intelligible, again, words have meaning.Yes, they do. What the hell is "proposition" supposed to mean in that
sentence?
Then your untrue idea about mutations of virusesWhat's untrue about it?
.And your untrue idea about unvaccinated causing lack of herd immunity.Giving a rapidly-mutating virus a larger pool of people to infect is
going to increase the number of variants that can infect both the
vaccinated and the previously infected. What part of that do you not
grasp?
Completely pulled from your ass. Fantasy you made up.Not in the least.
That's what I am talking about, that kind of pure nonsense that is explained as certain scientific fact. You don't care for the truth. You have no emotional basis for discovering the truth about anything.Emotions don't apply in this situation: facts do.
Bad judgment with vaccines, causes people to die. That is how subjectivity plays a role with the vaccines.Judgments about vaccines need to be fact-based.
Now, of course, you're going to reply that I reject all that is >> >> >> >> subjective, for the hundredth time. No. What I'm saying is that you're
trying to apply subjectivity in a situation where it doesn't belong.
Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 18:36:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Uh no, no cite, you can read.Yes, I can. What you can't do, obviously, is point out any lie on my
part.
There obviously is a how it works to both subjectivity and objectivity, opinion and fact, and the creationist conceptual scheme explains it.It explains nothing to anyone who isn't you.
You say these insane things.One of us does.
The obvious reason why your personal judgments are rubbish, is because you are clueless about how subjectivity works.Or that you are clueless and daft trying to establish rules as to how
an abstract concept "works". Presumably this is because, as usual, you
have your own personal definitions of "abstract", "concept", and
"works" that no one else shares.
So your judgments are not checked by your intellect, because you have no intellectual understanding of the rules of subjectivity.Please explain why you think an abstract concept needs "rules".
You are emancipated as being a total asshole.Word salad. What possible definition of "emancipated" are you using
here?
Systematically denying all what is subjective, because of it being subjective.I have never done any such thing. Neither has anyone else. That's your
own paranoid delusion.
So a perfect asshole.What a bizarre claim.
And again, this is all coming to a head, with the covid catastrophy. This culture in academics of marginalization of subjectivity, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.
The variants are exploding, which is not ordinary.Viruses mutate, and the more people they infect, the faster mutations
will spread. That's basic virology.
There is no herd immunity. The vaccinated have a feeble defense against severe disease.Have you considered that this may be largely due to large numbers of
people refusing to be vaccinated?
There were at least 4 highly experimental things. The mrna, with an uncontrolled dosage. The lipids in the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic with a non sterilization producing vaccine. Vaccinating against a coronavirus.Not sure what you mean by most of that.
So it is a very weak proposition, a very risky proposition, but it is sold as a very secure proposition.I see that you have your own personal definition of "proposition"...
Because of generic bad judgment, of people who are on the intellectual level, utterly clueless about how to make a personal judgment.How does subjectivity play any role whatsoever in vaccines? >> >> >> >> >> >Op woensdag 2 augustus 2023 om 16:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >> >> >> >> >> >> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Ridiculous, I pointed out a few lies, only a couple of posts ago.Citation please.
And you called rand paul a crackpot, so it is completely meaningless when you call me not sane.Or it could mean that I know a crackpot when I see one.
You judgment is rubbish, for obvious reasons.The "obvious" reason being that you don't like it.
This is obvious, you have an attitude, and you replies fit this attitude. Your replies have nothing to do with being truthful, or factually accurate, it is just a narrative, a story. You don't care about the truth about how
You sure have stamina.I find it hilarious that you're attempting to set rules as to how an
abstract concept "works". That's a pretty obvious category error.
you just have selfserving judgment where all truth that goes against your selfserving judgments, is ignored. You couldn't care about anything, even if your life depended on it, because you don't do all that subjective stuff.Such as what?
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 21:10:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.No, you haven't pointed out any. You keep accusing me of lying, but
you haven't given a single example despite repeated requests that you
do so.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.Nothing I have said is untrue. If you disagree, then GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.If you were the least bit honest (or sane) you'd POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE
of anything untrue that I have said. That you won't do so is a good
indication that you can't do so.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.<eye roll>
Of course you don't. You'll just make up your own definitions, like
always.
You say it is batcrap crazy, but ofcourse, you are yourself a total liar of this kind that I am talking about. Completely corrupt, everything you say is dishonest.Point out even one example.
Again, it is demonstrable fact that many people define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. Google does it. Then it is a lie to say, that people do not do that.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 16:36:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:subjectivity on the intellectual level.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.It's cute that you think that.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.I see that "function" is another word you have your own personal
definition for...
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.That you attempt to set rules for "how subjectivity works" would
strongly suggest that you yourself hold that position. At least if I
understand what you're trying to say there.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.No, that isn't "obvious" at all. And why would someone go "looking for
the truth" about subjectivity in the first place? How exactly would
one do that, and what, exactly, is this "truth" about it that you're
looking for? And don't give me nonsense about "how it works". It's a
concept: asking how it "works" is a category error.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.Disagreeing with you is not "lying".
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.Most people who aren't nuts would WANT to choose the best option, but
it is NOT an essential part of the definition of choosing. As I have
noted many times, you are free to make stupid choices, as I'm sure the
editors at both Google and the OED would readily agree, but WHY WOULD
YOU WANT TO?
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment.Yawn. Again, disagreeing with you is not lying.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,It's a concept. It doesn't "work", or "do" anything, it simply "is".
resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things."The subjective spirit choosing things" is nonsensical woo-woo. People
make choices. "Spirits" don't come into it.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivityWhat does that even mean?
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.GIGO.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.I blame the deaths on the virus. And you?
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization of
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 07:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is demonstrable fact that many people define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. Google does it. Then it is a lie to say, that people do not do that.Yes. non-crazy people do normally pick the best option available. But
that is not a rule, nor is it an essential part of the definition. As
I've said, you're always free to make stupid choices, like posting
your weird notions about how abstract concepts "work", in a language
that you neither read nor write for comprehension, in a public forum.
Or simultaneously appealing to the dictionary for the definition of
one word, while making up your own definitions for dozens of others.
Do either of those sound familiar to you? They should.
subjectivity on the intellectual level.Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 16:36:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.It's cute that you think that.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.I see that "function" is another word you have your own personal
definition for...
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.That you attempt to set rules for "how subjectivity works" would
strongly suggest that you yourself hold that position. At least if I
understand what you're trying to say there.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.No, that isn't "obvious" at all. And why would someone go "looking for
the truth" about subjectivity in the first place? How exactly would
one do that, and what, exactly, is this "truth" about it that you're
looking for? And don't give me nonsense about "how it works". It's a
concept: asking how it "works" is a category error.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.Disagreeing with you is not "lying".
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.Most people who aren't nuts would WANT to choose the best option, but
it is NOT an essential part of the definition of choosing. As I have
noted many times, you are free to make stupid choices, as I'm sure the
editors at both Google and the OED would readily agree, but WHY WOULD
YOU WANT TO?
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment.Yawn. Again, disagreeing with you is not lying.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,It's a concept. It doesn't "work", or "do" anything, it simply "is".
resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things."The subjective spirit choosing things" is nonsensical woo-woo. People
make choices. "Spirits" don't come into it.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivityWhat does that even mean?
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.GIGO.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.I blame the deaths on the virus. And you?
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization of
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02 AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going >somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still >often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still >often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still >> >often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
too difficult to take even half seriously.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote: >>> >> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
...<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando isOn Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Again, when you say that people do not redefine choosing in terms of what is best, then that is a lie.
And obviously I do not use the dictionary definition of the verb choose, by google. Nor do I use the dictionary definition of subjectivity. So I do not appeal to the dictionary for any word
. I have a more efficient and critical understanding than ordinary dictionaries, which are mostly conversational defintions, and not strictly logical.
You on the other hand insist on the dictionary definition for subjectivity,
you just quote it verbatim,
which doesn't demonstrate any understanding of it. And then you argue it is wrong not to follow the dictionary.
And then contrary to your own argument that the dictionary must be followed, you say the dictionary definition for the verb choose, on google, is wrong.
So all what you say is dishonesty. You're demonstrably a liar.
Now if you wouldn't lie about all of this, then you would consider that the essence of a decision is, that it in can turn out one way or another in the moment. Which means that a decision is essentially spontaneous. That if A is chosen, that B couldhave been chosen instead.
And then ofcourse with decisions in terms of spontaneity, then the decision maker could not be any objective thing, because what is objective can only force the result, in accordance with the objective properties it has. Which would obviously make thedecision make to be subjective, meaning that it is identified with a chosen opinion, the subjective spirit.
Which is functional logic.
But then you protest the whole idea of functional logic, because according to you, what is abstract does not function. Which is dishonesty, culminating in stupidity.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 17:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:subjectivity on the intellectual level.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 07:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is demonstrable fact that many people define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. Google does it. Then it is a lie to say, that people do not do that.Yes. non-crazy people do normally pick the best option available. But
that is not a rule, nor is it an essential part of the definition. As
I've said, you're always free to make stupid choices, like posting
your weird notions about how abstract concepts "work", in a language
that you neither read nor write for comprehension, in a public forum.
Or simultaneously appealing to the dictionary for the definition of
one word, while making up your own definitions for dozens of others.
Do either of those sound familiar to you? They should.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 16:36:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.It's cute that you think that.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.I see that "function" is another word you have your own personal
definition for...
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.That you attempt to set rules for "how subjectivity works" would
strongly suggest that you yourself hold that position. At least if I
understand what you're trying to say there.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.No, that isn't "obvious" at all. And why would someone go "looking for
the truth" about subjectivity in the first place? How exactly would
one do that, and what, exactly, is this "truth" about it that you're
looking for? And don't give me nonsense about "how it works". It's a
concept: asking how it "works" is a category error.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.Disagreeing with you is not "lying".
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.Most people who aren't nuts would WANT to choose the best option, but
it is NOT an essential part of the definition of choosing. As I have
noted many times, you are free to make stupid choices, as I'm sure the
editors at both Google and the OED would readily agree, but WHY WOULD
YOU WANT TO?
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment.Yawn. Again, disagreeing with you is not lying.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,It's a concept. It doesn't "work", or "do" anything, it simply "is".
resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things."The subjective spirit choosing things" is nonsensical woo-woo. People
make choices. "Spirits" don't come into it.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivityWhat does that even mean?
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.GIGO.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.I blame the deaths on the virus. And you?
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization of
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote: >>>> >> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
...<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is
showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:51:02?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >> >>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
It's possible that the person who made the comment about stamina thought the irony so obvious as to not need explanation.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 08:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:have been chosen instead.
Again, when you say that people do not redefine choosing in terms of what is best, then that is a lie.It's what most people do when they choose, It's not an essential part
of any definition of the word. Do you seriously not grasp that
distinction?
And obviously I do not use the dictionary definition of the verb choose, by google. Nor do I use the dictionary definition of subjectivity. So I do not appeal to the dictionary for any wordYou literally just appealed to the dictionary over the definition of
choose, and you're continuing to argue for it. For fuck's sake, are
you seriously THAT confused?
. I have a more efficient and critical understanding than ordinary dictionaries, which are mostly conversational defintions, and not strictly logical.Translation: As I have noted dozens of times, and as you acknowledge,
you keep making up your own definitions for words. Why? It makes it impossible for people who actually speak the language that you're
torturing to figure out what the hell you're trying to say. For
someone who is so insistent that his ideas are so important, THAT'S A
REALLY STUPID CHOICE.
You on the other hand insist on the dictionary definition for subjectivity,You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never done that. But
you just quote it verbatim,
I do note that IF YOU WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, you ought to use standard definitions for words. Making up your own definitions GUARANTEES THAT
YOU WON'T BE UNDERSTOOD.
Do you seriously not see how self-defeating that is?
which doesn't demonstrate any understanding of it. And then you argue it is wrong not to follow the dictionary.No, I point out that making up your own definitions for words
guarantees that no one will be able to understand you. For what has to
be the hundredth time. Do you still not get such a basic point?
And then contrary to your own argument that the dictionary must be followed, you say the dictionary definition for the verb choose, on google, is wrong.No,I said that making the best possible choice is not an essential
part of the definition, just what normal, non-crazy people will do in
a given situation. Google is right to include that, but again, it is
common practice, not an essential part of the definition.
So all what you say is dishonesty. You're demonstrably a liar.Nope. It's just your inability to read English for comprehension.
Now if you wouldn't lie about all of this, then you would consider that the essence of a decision is, that it in can turn out one way or another in the moment. Which means that a decision is essentially spontaneous. That if A is chosen, that B could
That decisions require at least two options is a given. It does NOT logically follow from this that "a decision is essentiallydecision make to be subjective, meaning that it is identified with a chosen opinion, the subjective spirit.
spontaneous". That's your own weird obsession talking.
And then ofcourse with decisions in terms of spontaneity, then the decision maker could not be any objective thing, because what is objective can only force the result, in accordance with the objective properties it has. Which would obviously make the
And we're back to word salad.
Which is functional logic.
It is gibberish.
But then you protest the whole idea of functional logic, because according to you, what is abstract does not function. Which is dishonesty, culminating in stupidity.Or it could be that you're using your own definitions for
"function/al", "logic", and "abstract". I know which possibility my
money is on.
subjectivity on the intellectual level.Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 17:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 07:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is demonstrable fact that many people define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. Google does it. Then it is a lie to say, that people do not do that.Yes. non-crazy people do normally pick the best option available. But
that is not a rule, nor is it an essential part of the definition. As
I've said, you're always free to make stupid choices, like posting
your weird notions about how abstract concepts "work", in a language
that you neither read nor write for comprehension, in a public forum.
Or simultaneously appealing to the dictionary for the definition of
one word, while making up your own definitions for dozens of others.
Do either of those sound familiar to you? They should.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 16:36:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.It's cute that you think that.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.I see that "function" is another word you have your own personal
definition for...
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.That you attempt to set rules for "how subjectivity works" would
strongly suggest that you yourself hold that position. At least if I >> >> understand what you're trying to say there.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.No, that isn't "obvious" at all. And why would someone go "looking for >> >> the truth" about subjectivity in the first place? How exactly would
one do that, and what, exactly, is this "truth" about it that you're >> >> looking for? And don't give me nonsense about "how it works". It's a >> >> concept: asking how it "works" is a category error.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.Disagreeing with you is not "lying".
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.Most people who aren't nuts would WANT to choose the best option, but >> >> it is NOT an essential part of the definition of choosing. As I have >> >> noted many times, you are free to make stupid choices, as I'm sure the >> >> editors at both Google and the OED would readily agree, but WHY WOULD >> >> YOU WANT TO?
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment. >> >> Yawn. Again, disagreeing with you is not lying.It's a concept. It doesn't "work", or "do" anything, it simply "is". >> >> >resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,
"The subjective spirit choosing things" is nonsensical woo-woo. People >> >> make choices. "Spirits" don't come into it.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivityWhat does that even mean?
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.GIGO.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.I blame the deaths on the virus. And you?
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization of
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:51:02?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >> >>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
It's possible that the person who made the comment about stamina thought the irony so obvious as to not need explanation.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:49:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>You could point out exactly where I wrote that "sparring
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>>>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:
...On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so.
It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
with Nando is showing stamina", but I won't hold my breath
waiting. I have both of them killfiled, but of course that
means nothing to you WRT your assertion.
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 04:19:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" ><brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:51:02?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:And it might be noted that I implicitly included Nando in
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>> >>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>> >>>
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>> >>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
It's possible that the person who made the comment about stamina thought the irony so obvious as to not need explanation.
the "troll" category, simply noting ("...especially...")
that the JTEM item is worse. Anything more is in someone's
imagination.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:23:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:49:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>You could point out exactly where I wrote that "sparring
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>>>>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>>>>
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>>>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>>showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't >>>expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
with Nando is showing stamina", but I won't hold my breath
waiting. I have both of them killfiled, but of course that
means nothing to you WRT your assertion.
Sure, just as soon as you point out exactly where I wrote that you
wrote... Glenn much?
And my "assertion" isn't informed by whom you have killfiled.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:27:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 04:19:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" >><brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:51:02?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:And it might be noted that I implicitly included Nando in
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>>> >>too difficult to take even half seriously.
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>> >>>
rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>> >>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
It's possible that the person who made the comment about stamina thought the irony so obvious as to not need explanation.
the "troll" category, simply noting ("...especially...")
that the JTEM item is worse. Anything more is in someone's
imagination.
The following:
"but I'm still interested (vaguely) in who this entity is."
is more than you simply noting the above, and is unambiguously not in >someone's imagination.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:04:42 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:23:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>So your comment wasn't meant to imply that I had a double
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:49:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:You could point out exactly where I wrote that "sparring
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> >>>>>>> wrote:I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>>>>>too difficult to take even half seriously.
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but >>>>>>> rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>>>>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>>>>>
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>>>showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't >>>>expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
with Nando is showing stamina", but I won't hold my breath
waiting. I have both of them killfiled, but of course that
means nothing to you WRT your assertion.
Sure, just as soon as you point out exactly where I wrote that you
wrote... Glenn much?
standard WRT JTEM vs Nando, even though you used that phrase
in your comment regarding my supposed different view of
wasting time with Nando vs wasting time with JTEM? OK.
Buyt when a response a comment begins "So..." (IOW, "That
implies...") it seems to me that is exactly what you
intended.
And my "assertion" isn't informed by whom you have killfiled.You seem incapable of being informed by almost anything.
The fact that I have both killfiled should be evidence that
your statement regarding my supposed different views of the
two idiots in question is incorrect.
But of course, that you
might be incorrect is simply not possible, right?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:05:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:27:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>That I'm vaguely curious regarding the actual identity of a
wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 04:19:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" >>><brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:51:02?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:And it might be noted that I implicitly included Nando in
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>>>> showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> >>>>> >>> wrote:I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but >>>>> >>> rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>>> >>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>>> >>>
too difficult to take even half seriously.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
It's possible that the person who made the comment about stamina thought the irony so obvious as to not need explanation.
the "troll" category, simply noting ("...especially...")
that the JTEM item is worse. Anything more is in someone's
imagination.
The following:
"but I'm still interested (vaguely) in who this entity is."
is more than you simply noting the above,
particular loon has zero to do with any desire to try to
hold a discussion with it;
I leave that sort of thing to others.
Nando and JTEM are equal in that respect, and I
don't differentiate between them other than to note, as I
did, that IMHO JTEM is worse than Nando. To quote someone
you hold in exceptionally high regard, I don't understand
why you *still* can't understand that.
Unambiguity seems to be in the eye of the beholder, as does
and is unambiguously not in someone's imagination.
imaginary implication.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 18:36:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>This below, your *first* comment in this thread, was
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:04:42 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:23:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:49:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> >>>>>>>> wrote:I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes >>>>>>>too difficult to take even half seriously.
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but >>>>>>>> rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>>>>>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>>>>>>
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
So your comment wasn't meant to imply that I had a doubleYou could point out exactly where I wrote that "sparring
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>>>>showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't >>>>>expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
with Nando is showing stamina", but I won't hold my breath
waiting. I have both of them killfiled, but of course that
means nothing to you WRT your assertion.
Sure, just as soon as you point out exactly where I wrote that you >>>wrote... Glenn much?
standard WRT JTEM vs Nando, even though you used that phrase
in your comment regarding my supposed different view of
wasting time with Nando vs wasting time with JTEM? OK.
So you admit those are your double-standards? OK.
So you admit that your comments are irrelevant to prior comments? OK.
So you admit that your explicit accusation against jillery is
OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect? OK.
Buyt when a response a comment begins "So..." (IOW, "That
implies...") it seems to me that is exactly what you
intended.
It seems to me you're determined to imagine whatever pleases you.
My
"so" which twisted your knickers OBVIOUSLY identifies a summary of all
the comments up to that point.
And my "assertion" isn't informed by whom you have killfiled.You seem incapable of being informed by almost anything.
Your word games continue to ape Glenn's.
The fact that I have both killfiled should be evidence that
your statement regarding my supposed different views of the
two idiots in question is incorrect.
Once again, point out where I said those were your views.
Once again, your failure to do so would qualify as your admission that
your explicit accusation is once again OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect.
But of course, that you
might be incorrect is simply not possible, right?
But of course, that you enjoy raising yet more stupid manufactured
arguments is simply not possible, right?
Again, you are lying that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option. They most certainly do do that, a majority of them, including yourself. It's in the google definition, number 1.
You do it yourself, because when you say decisions are not essentially spontaneous,
it can only mean you assert some evaluation process between the possiblities that is going on, which is choosing in terms of what is best.
In the same moment that a decision turns out A, the possiblity of the decision turning out B is negated.
That is what it means that decisions are essentially spontaneous.
You cannot have a decision that can turn out either A or B, without the negation of the other possiblity, at the same time that the other possiblity is made the present.
You make the logic of a chesscomputer calculating a move, in a forced way, which is a selection process, into a decision. Your decisions could not have turned out any other way than they did.
But you know this, you just continuously like to lie about it,
because this is what you are all about. Everything you say is dishonesty, lying, so that you can define choosing in terms of what is best.
I guess with feelings of egotism associated to it, feelings of control, feelings of the best.
I believe you know I am right, and you perceive me to be a great danger to the way you are
. Basically you are a drug addict, addicted to the psycho active substances that the brain / body produces itself. Somehow you can manipulate the psychoactive substances, with this definition of choosing in terms of what is best.
Generate the feelings of the best, and whatever. It is worth your time to try to stop the very clear creationist conceptual scheme
, because you know that it is correct, and could easily be brought into schools everywhere, to teach fact and opinion as a basic subject, to every student.
Subjective means, identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means identified with a model of it.
And the subjective part of reality is the part that chooses,
and the objective part of it, is the part that is chosen, creator and creation.
It is very simple, certainly more simple than the rules of chess.
There is the spiritual domain,the will of God. And that is what makes me an honest person, while you on the other hand are a liar, who will go to hell.
and the material domain, subjective and objective, respectively. And the lord God is in the spiritual domain, and I submit my will to the will of God, in prayer. Talking to God about what I should do in life, within worship, it is my will submitted to
You can see, it is all your own doing that you yourself throw out your own true emotions, throw out your own true personal character, and exchange them for these feelings associated to defining choosing in terms of what is best.
It is not some kind of coincedence that google defines choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. It is also not some kind of coincedence that you lie about it that google does this.
You depend on lying about it.
Op vrijdag 4 augustus 2023 om 15:21:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:have been chosen instead.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 08:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, when you say that people do not redefine choosing in terms of what is best, then that is a lie.It's what most people do when they choose, It's not an essential part
of any definition of the word. Do you seriously not grasp that
distinction?
And obviously I do not use the dictionary definition of the verb choose, by google. Nor do I use the dictionary definition of subjectivity. So I do not appeal to the dictionary for any wordYou literally just appealed to the dictionary over the definition of
choose, and you're continuing to argue for it. For fuck's sake, are
you seriously THAT confused?
. I have a more efficient and critical understanding than ordinary dictionaries, which are mostly conversational defintions, and not strictly logical.Translation: As I have noted dozens of times, and as you acknowledge,
you keep making up your own definitions for words. Why? It makes it
impossible for people who actually speak the language that you're
torturing to figure out what the hell you're trying to say. For
someone who is so insistent that his ideas are so important, THAT'S A
REALLY STUPID CHOICE.
You on the other hand insist on the dictionary definition for subjectivity, >> > you just quote it verbatim,You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never done that. But
I do note that IF YOU WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, you ought to use standard
definitions for words. Making up your own definitions GUARANTEES THAT
YOU WON'T BE UNDERSTOOD.
Do you seriously not see how self-defeating that is?
which doesn't demonstrate any understanding of it. And then you argue it is wrong not to follow the dictionary.No, I point out that making up your own definitions for words
guarantees that no one will be able to understand you. For what has to
be the hundredth time. Do you still not get such a basic point?
And then contrary to your own argument that the dictionary must be followed, you say the dictionary definition for the verb choose, on google, is wrong.No,I said that making the best possible choice is not an essential
part of the definition, just what normal, non-crazy people will do in
a given situation. Google is right to include that, but again, it is
common practice, not an essential part of the definition.
So all what you say is dishonesty. You're demonstrably a liar.Nope. It's just your inability to read English for comprehension.
Now if you wouldn't lie about all of this, then you would consider that the essence of a decision is, that it in can turn out one way or another in the moment. Which means that a decision is essentially spontaneous. That if A is chosen, that B could
the decision make to be subjective, meaning that it is identified with a chosen opinion, the subjective spirit.That decisions require at least two options is a given. It does NOT
logically follow from this that "a decision is essentially
spontaneous". That's your own weird obsession talking.
And then ofcourse with decisions in terms of spontaneity, then the decision maker could not be any objective thing, because what is objective can only force the result, in accordance with the objective properties it has. Which would obviously make
subjectivity on the intellectual level.And we're back to word salad.
Which is functional logic.
It is gibberish.
But then you protest the whole idea of functional logic, because according to you, what is abstract does not function. Which is dishonesty, culminating in stupidity.Or it could be that you're using your own definitions for
"function/al", "logic", and "abstract". I know which possibility my
money is on.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 17:11:01 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 07:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is demonstrable fact that many people define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. Google does it. Then it is a lie to say, that people do not do that.Yes. non-crazy people do normally pick the best option available. But
that is not a rule, nor is it an essential part of the definition. As
I've said, you're always free to make stupid choices, like posting
your weird notions about how abstract concepts "work", in a language
that you neither read nor write for comprehension, in a public forum.
Or simultaneously appealing to the dictionary for the definition of
one word, while making up your own definitions for dozens of others.
Do either of those sound familiar to you? They should.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 16:36:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, you just called Rand Paul, and Geert Vanden Bossche crazy. They aren't crazy, you are.It's cute that you think that.
Abstract concepts function in the mind. In order to fuction, they got to have a way in which they work. As is totally obvious, except to people who are crazy.I see that "function" is another word you have your own personal
definition for...
I guess you assert some kind of subjectivity constant, that the understanding of subjectivity does not significantly change through time.That you attempt to set rules for "how subjectivity works" would
strongly suggest that you yourself hold that position. At least if I >> >> >> understand what you're trying to say there.
Which is obviously a self-serving idea, and not based on looking for the truth about it.No, that isn't "obvious" at all. And why would someone go "looking for >> >> >> the truth" about subjectivity in the first place? How exactly would
one do that, and what, exactly, is this "truth" about it that you're >> >> >> looking for? And don't give me nonsense about "how it works". It's a >> >> >> concept: asking how it "works" is a category error.
Which is to say, that it is just more of your continuous dishonesty, lying.Disagreeing with you is not "lying".
It is demonstrably untrue that people don't define choosing in terms of what is best, because it is so defined on google, which borrows from an Oxford dictionary. And I already told you that, so you are lying about it.Most people who aren't nuts would WANT to choose the best option, but >> >> >> it is NOT an essential part of the definition of choosing. As I have >> >> >> noted many times, you are free to make stupid choices, as I'm sure the >> >> >> editors at both Google and the OED would readily agree, but WHY WOULD >> >> >> YOU WANT TO?
So what you have is continuous dishonesty, lying, and bad judgment. >> >> >> Yawn. Again, disagreeing with you is not lying.It's a concept. It doesn't "work", or "do" anything, it simply "is". >> >> >> >resulting in your continuous dishonesty, lying and bad judgment. You have no intellectual awareness of the subjective spirit choosing things.
You yourself are clueless about how subjectivity works,
"The subjective spirit choosing things" is nonsensical woo-woo. People >> >> >> make choices. "Spirits" don't come into it.
I have no doubt that marginalization of subjectivityWhat does that even mean?
is what is going on in the current cultural trend in academics, spreading out to society in general. Causing the ongoing covid catastrophy, that is soon to lead to mass death.GIGO.
I guess you will blame the mass death on the unvaccinated, because you just fantasize self serving judgments without warrant.I blame the deaths on the virus. And you?
It cannot be blamed on a few individuals with manipulative control, because too many people are involved. So it has to be a cultural trend. And then I guess the most obvious culprit would be woke ideology, which is just about marginalization of
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw.
Op donderdag 3 augustus 2023 om 02:11:00 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 09:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:the will of God. And that is what makes me an honest person, while you on the other hand are a liar, who will go to hell.
Again, you are lying that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option. They most certainly do do that, a majority of them, including yourself. It's in the google definition, number 1.There are two definitions given. Did you not read the second, which
reads "decide on a course of action ***typically*** after rejecting alternatives". Note: "typically". What do you think that means? It
means that it is not an essential part of the definition, just what is commonly done.
You do it yourself, because when you say decisions are not essentially spontaneous,I have never said that. You're completely free to make all your
decisions spontaneously if you like. But why would you do something
that silly?
it can only mean you assert some evaluation process between the possiblities that is going on, which is choosing in terms of what is best.Yes, a prudent person will do just that. But a spontaneous choice
without considering the alternatives is still a choice. I have been
saying that all along you illiterate twat.
In the same moment that a decision turns out A, the possiblity of the decision turning out B is negated.So what you're saying is that if you choose A, you don't choose B.
Yes, that's as obvious as "water is wet".
That is what it means that decisions are essentially spontaneous.Not for any normal English definition of "spontaneous". Again, you're
making up your own definitions for words. Why?
You cannot have a decision that can turn out either A or B, without the negation of the other possiblity, at the same time that the other possiblity is made the present.Yes. SO WHAT? Again, this is no greater an insight than "water is
wet". What the hell is your point?
You make the logic of a chesscomputer calculating a move, in a forced way, which is a selection process, into a decision. Your decisions could not have turned out any other way than they did.Sure they could. Again, people are free to make bad choices if they
want to. But why would they want to?
But you know this, you just continuously like to lie about it,I have said nothing untrue.
because this is what you are all about. Everything you say is dishonesty, lying, so that you can define choosing in terms of what is best.For what has to be the ten thousandth time, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING
THAT WAY. I simply observe that a non-crazy person will WANT to make
the best available decision. Do you really not understand the huge difference? If you don't, then I'm afraid I can't help you: go take a remedial course in English.
I guess with feelings of egotism associated to it, feelings of control, feelings of the best.Or wanting the best possible outcome. What exactly is your problem
with that?
I believe you know I am right, and you perceive me to be a great danger to the way you areNo, I believe that you're badly confused about pretty much everything,
not just "choosing".
. Basically you are a drug addict, addicted to the psycho active substances that the brain / body produces itself. Somehow you can manipulate the psychoactive substances, with this definition of choosing in terms of what is best.WTF is your mental malfunction? Again, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT
WAY. I HAVE STATED THAT REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. You're wasting both
our time ranting at me about a position that I DO NOT HOLD.
Generate the feelings of the best, and whatever. It is worth your time to try to stop the very clear creationist conceptual schemeYour "creationist conceptual scheme" is two groups of five words each
that don't communicate anything to anyone but you. How exactly does
one "stop" word salad?
, because you know that it is correct, and could easily be brought into schools everywhere, to teach fact and opinion as a basic subject, to every student.I would love to be a fly on the wall when you propose that to school officials, and they tell you the same thing I'm telling you: it's not
even wrong. It's a meaningless grouping of words that has significance
to no one besides you, and your "explanations" of it inevitably
devolve into gibberish because you insist on redefining every other
word you use.
Subjective means, identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means identified with a model of it.Not to anyone who isn't you.
And the subjective part of reality is the part that chooses,Complete and utter nonsense.
and the objective part of it, is the part that is chosen, creator and creation.Again, complete and utter nonsense.
It is very simple, certainly more simple than the rules of chess.It's also completely nonsensical as described.
There is the spiritual domain,
and the material domain, subjective and objective, respectively. And the lord God is in the spiritual domain, and I submit my will to the will of God, in prayer. Talking to God about what I should do in life, within worship, it is my will submitted to
OK, so you've now completely abandoned any pretense at rationality,
and are diving into religious woo-woo instead. So much for your
"functional logic".
You can see, it is all your own doing that you yourself throw out your own true emotions, throw out your own true personal character, and exchange them for these feelings associated to defining choosing in terms of what is best.Again, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED THAT
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. You are AGAIN wasting both our time
criticizing a position that I DO NOT HOLD. Why?
It is not some kind of coincedence that google defines choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. It is also not some kind of coincedence that you lie about it that google does this.I have never done so. What I have pointed out is that it is not an
essential part of the definition, just what normal, non-crazy people
do when choosing.
You depend on lying about it.Again, I have said nothing untrue.
could have been chosen instead.Op vrijdag 4 augustus 2023 om 15:21:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 08:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, when you say that people do not redefine choosing in terms of what is best, then that is a lie.It's what most people do when they choose, It's not an essential part
of any definition of the word. Do you seriously not grasp that
distinction?
And obviously I do not use the dictionary definition of the verb choose, by google. Nor do I use the dictionary definition of subjectivity. So I do not appeal to the dictionary for any wordYou literally just appealed to the dictionary over the definition of
choose, and you're continuing to argue for it. For fuck's sake, are
you seriously THAT confused?
. I have a more efficient and critical understanding than ordinary dictionaries, which are mostly conversational defintions, and not strictly logical.Translation: As I have noted dozens of times, and as you acknowledge,
you keep making up your own definitions for words. Why? It makes it
impossible for people who actually speak the language that you're
torturing to figure out what the hell you're trying to say. For
someone who is so insistent that his ideas are so important, THAT'S A
REALLY STUPID CHOICE.
You on the other hand insist on the dictionary definition for subjectivity,You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never done that. But
you just quote it verbatim,
I do note that IF YOU WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, you ought to use standard
definitions for words. Making up your own definitions GUARANTEES THAT
YOU WON'T BE UNDERSTOOD.
Do you seriously not see how self-defeating that is?
which doesn't demonstrate any understanding of it. And then you argue it is wrong not to follow the dictionary.No, I point out that making up your own definitions for words
guarantees that no one will be able to understand you. For what has to
be the hundredth time. Do you still not get such a basic point?
And then contrary to your own argument that the dictionary must be followed, you say the dictionary definition for the verb choose, on google, is wrong.No,I said that making the best possible choice is not an essential
part of the definition, just what normal, non-crazy people will do in
a given situation. Google is right to include that, but again, it is
common practice, not an essential part of the definition.
So all what you say is dishonesty. You're demonstrably a liar.Nope. It's just your inability to read English for comprehension.
Now if you wouldn't lie about all of this, then you would consider that the essence of a decision is, that it in can turn out one way or another in the moment. Which means that a decision is essentially spontaneous. That if A is chosen, that B
That decisions require at least two options is a given. It does NOT
logically follow from this that "a decision is essentially
spontaneous". That's your own weird obsession talking.
And then ofcourse with decisions in terms of spontaneity, then the decision maker could not be any objective thing, because what is objective can only force
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not mentiontypically at all.
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 23:06:04 UTC+3, Nando Ronteltap wrote:typically at all.
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not mention
What science institution is Google? Some business organization, not worth
to trust as their goal is their profit and they move by greed.
University of Cambridge is most authoritative (for me) about English, being the most prominent university in Great Britain. Lot of people think same way,
so quite general. Not all people think like that, some like Google, others like
to make up their own meanings to words like you and not even explain WTF
you mean.
So <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/choose>
Where is best there? There is "want". People may want what is
not best, may want to risk greatly, or may want to use dice to decide instead of evaluating, "best" is not part of definition of choose.
But of course very common, especially about sane people is to want what
is best. Like Harry said several times. So you are lying that Harry was lying.
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 23:06:04 UTC+3, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not defineWhat science institution is Google? Some business organization, not worth
choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition
defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And
the whole definition does not mention typically at all.
to trust as their goal is their profit and they move by greed.
University of Cambridge is most authoritative (for me) about English, being the most prominent university in Great Britain. Lot of people think same way, so quite general. Not all people think like that, some like Google, others like
to make up their own meanings to words like you and not even explain WTF
you mean.
So <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/choose>
Where is best there? There is "want". People may want what is
not best, may want to risk greatly, or may want to use dice to decide
instead of evaluating, "best" is not part of definition of choose.
But of course very common, especially about sane people is to want what
is best. Like Harry said several times. So you are lying that Harry was lying.
Another evolutionist, another liar.
That google definition is in reference to some oxford organization. So
now you want to assert the authority of cambridge dictionary, rather than have definitions which are logical.
The essence of decisions is that they can turn out one way or another in
the moment. Harry asserts that evaluating what is best is in the essence
of some decisions. Not all, but some. He asserts that these decisions in terms of what is best are not spontaneous.
But that means these decisions in terms of what is best cannot turn out
one way or another in the moment. So they aren't decisions. So it is the
same deal as defining decisions in terms of figuring out what is best. It
is just shrouded by having the same word decision, for 2 fundamentally different logical functions.
It is same like calling cats, cats, but also calling elephants cats. So
you have 2 completely different things, which are both called cats. Harry
has 2 completely different logical functions for the word decision, and
he calls both of these logical functions decisions.
I build up a decision in terms of what is best, from spontaneous
decisions. Harry defines to figure out what is best, in the definition of
the word decision, as a second definition of it. So it is true that Harry defines decision in terms of figuring out what is best, and a thousand
times he lied about it that he did not.
Because Harry is duplicit in every way, dishonest in every way he can be.
Which is ofcourse par for the course, for an evolutionist.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 03:15:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 18:36:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>This below, your *first* comment in this thread, was
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:04:42 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:23:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:49:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> >>>>>>>>> wrote:I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but >>>>>>>>> rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>>>>>>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >>>>>>>>>>>> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>>>>>>>
too difficult to take even half seriously.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
OBVIOUSLY designed to start an argument by calling my
comment a "double standard", which it OBVIOUSLY was not, at
least for anyone capable of parsing a simple sentence in
English:
Wow! I guess "admit" has a different meaning in JillWorld,So your comment wasn't meant to imply that I had a doubleYou could point out exactly where I wrote that "sparring
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>>>>> showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't >>>>>> expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
with Nando is showing stamina", but I won't hold my breath
waiting. I have both of them killfiled, but of course that
means nothing to you WRT your assertion.
Sure, just as soon as you point out exactly where I wrote that you
wrote... Glenn much?
standard WRT JTEM vs Nando, even though you used that phrase
in your comment regarding my supposed different view of
wasting time with Nando vs wasting time with JTEM? OK.
So you admit those are your double-standards? OK.
as does "supposed different view".
As someone you seem to hold in exceptionally high regard
So you admit that your comments are irrelevant to prior comments? OK.
So you admit that your explicit accusation against jillery is
OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect? OK.
Buyt when a response a comment begins "So..." (IOW, "That
implies...") it seems to me that is exactly what you
intended.
It seems to me you're determined to imagine whatever pleases you.
would say, "Pot. Kettle. Black".
Oh, OBVIOUSLY. <eyeroll...>
My
"so" which twisted your knickers OBVIOUSLY identifies a summary of all
the comments up to that point.
Again, Pot. Kettle. Black.
And my "assertion" isn't informed by whom you have killfiled.You seem incapable of being informed by almost anything.
Your word games continue to ape Glenn's.
The fact that I have both killfiled should be evidence that
your statement regarding my supposed different views of the
two idiots in question is incorrect.
Once again, point out where I said those were your views.
Once again, your failure to do so would qualify as your admission that
your explicit accusation is once again OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect.
But of course, that you
might be incorrect is simply not possible, right?
But of course, that you enjoy raising yet more stupid manufactured
arguments is simply not possible, right?
Or maybe "Mote. Beam. Eye."
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 23:06:04 UTC+3, Nando Ronteltap wrote:typically at all.
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not mention
What science institution is Google? Some business organization, not worth
to trust as their goal is their profit and they move by greed.
University of Cambridge is most authoritative (for me) about English, being the most prominent university in Great Britain. Lot of people think same way,
so quite general. Not all people think like that, some like Google, others like
to make up their own meanings to words like you and not even explain WTF
you mean.
So <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/choose>
Where is best there? There is "want". People may want what is
not best, may want to risk greatly, or may want to use dice to decide instead of evaluating, "best" is not part of definition of choose.
But of course very common, especially about sane people is to want what
is best. Like Harry said several times. So you are lying that Harry was lying.
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 23:06:04 UTC+3, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not defineWhat science institution is Google? Some business organization, not worth to trust as their goal is their profit and they move by greed.
choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition
defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And >> the whole definition does not mention typically at all.
University of Cambridge is most authoritative (for me) about English, being
the most prominent university in Great Britain. Lot of people think same way,
so quite general. Not all people think like that, some like Google, others like
to make up their own meanings to words like you and not even explain WTF you mean.
So <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/choose>
Where is best there? There is "want". People may want what is
not best, may want to risk greatly, or may want to use dice to decide instead of evaluating, "best" is not part of definition of choose.
But of course very common, especially about sane people is to want what
is best. Like Harry said several times. So you are lying that Harry was lying.
Philosopher Harry Frankfurt who recently passed away had framed free will
in terms of the higher order desiring of what is desirable. Daniel Dennett had picked up on this in how he put forward various aspects of free will alongside deliberative self-control. These get at being less impulsive, where one may make a worse choice. Neuro-dude David Eagleman talked about people with damage to emotional areas that make it impossible for them to make evaluations and subsequent choices in basic tasks like shopping at a frozen food aisle. That case would not involve the best choice so much as breaking the cycle of Buridan’s ass.
Frankfurt will probably be best known for his work on “bullshit” which is
apt given the generation and source of this thread.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/books/harry-g-frankfurt-dead.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Frankfurt
Nobody is as skilled at piling up the bullshit as Nando. And in doing so he acts toward the most basal and banal desire structuring. As an advocate of free will, he sucks at it and is a poster boy for its relative rarity or non-existence in the world. He acts more like someone with some neuroanatomical insult impinging on the capacity for evaluation, empathy, and/or self-awareness. He lacks a filter.
Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Cambridge is just more clown world.
Cambridge definitions:
choose: to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities decide: to choose something, especially after thinking carefully about several possibilities
Obviously, going around in circles. It is a conflation between the moral advice to do your best, and the barebone logic of choosing. Even it does not mention what is best, it all implies evaluation of options.
Evaluation according to what you want.
What do insane clowns like you really want? Anyone who rants on and on as you do must have gotten their marbles scrambled up at some tragic point in the past and is in no shape to be lecturing others about evaluation or choosing the best. You were ranting like this in the 90s and go on and on
so regularly one wonders how you function in an offline capacity. It cannot be a pretty sight.
Cambridge is just more clown world.
Cambridge definitions:
choose: to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities decide: to choose something, especially after thinking carefully about several possibilities
Obviously, going around in circles. It is a conflation between the moral advice to do your best, and the barebone logic of choosing. Even it does
not mention what is best, it all implies evaluation of options.
Evaluation according to what you want.
They are just all corrupt, as you are yourself, especially Dennett is
corupt. All corrupt in the same way.
And to have to evaluate everything, then to get out of bed, you have to evaluate whether to get out of bed or not. And then evaluate how is the
best way to do it. And then evaluate what muscless you should use. etc.
etc. These things work spontaneously, based on emotions, the spirit decides.
And I guess when people cannot evaluate anymore, it is because they lost touch with their emotions.
Spontaneity is expression of the normal order of decisionmaking
processes. Impulses break through the normal order of decisionmaking processes.
Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
They are just all corrupt, as you are yourself, especially Dennett is corupt. All corrupt in the same way.
And to have to evaluate everything, then to get out of bed, you have to evaluate whether to get out of bed or not. And then evaluate how is the best way to do it. And then evaluate what muscless you should use. etc. etc. These things work spontaneously, based on emotions, the spirit decides.
And I guess when people cannot evaluate anymore, it is because they lost touch with their emotions.
Spontaneity is expression of the normal order of decisionmaking
processes. Impulses break through the normal order of decisionmaking processes.
In getting out of bed there are worse ways of doing it— falling face first to the floor. But there need not be a best way. Given the automaticity of procedural memory, there may not be a whole lot of evaluation going on
aside from achieving balance and holding off on pissing until one reaches the water closet.
You can just go fuck yourself. One of you evolutionists, I believe it was Dagget, he decided to compel people to vaccinate at his place of work, or otherwise they would lose their education. Which is really a crime
according to normal interpretation of nuremburg laws. Some of these
people, maybe they are vaccine injured, some of these people may die
because of virus evolution by mass vaccination.
You have bad judgment, weird ideology, and mental illness. And we can all
see it now with the woke ideology from universities. And the high rates of mental illness.
I know I've got a good thing with the creationist conceptual scheme. The concepts of fact and opinion, in one coherent scheme. Stuff that should
be taught as a basic subject in school, obviously. And then no more woke bullshit, of mentally deranged professors. Then people are emancipated to obtain their own accurate facts, and express their own meaningful
personal opinions. Which is common sense.
Nando Ronteltap <nando_ronteltap@live.nl> wrote:
You can just go fuck yourself. One of you evolutionists, I believe it wasWhen Nando tells me to just go fuck myself, I see that as an almost cute
Dagget, he decided to compel people to vaccinate at his place of work, or
otherwise they would lose their education. Which is really a crime
according to normal interpretation of nuremburg laws. Some of these
people, maybe they are vaccine injured, some of these people may die
because of virus evolution by mass vaccination.
You have bad judgment, weird ideology, and mental illness. And we can all
see it now with the woke ideology from universities. And the high rates of mental illness.
I know I've got a good thing with the creationist conceptual scheme. The
concepts of fact and opinion, in one coherent scheme. Stuff that should
be taught as a basic subject in school, obviously. And then no more woke
bullshit, of mentally deranged professors. Then people are emancipated to
obtain their own accurate facts, and express their own meaningful
personal opinions. Which is common sense.
form of endearment like a puppy wagging its tail.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 03:15:07 -0400, the following appearedJapanese ghost story movies were a passing fad a couple decades ago. The >Grudge comes to mind. This grudge hasnt passed yet, though from another
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 18:36:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>This below, your *first* comment in this thread, was
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:04:42 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:23:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:49:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but >>>>>>>>>> rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized. >>>>>>>>>> Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >>>>>>>>>>>>> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>>>>>>>>
too difficult to take even half seriously.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
OBVIOUSLY designed to start an argument by calling my
comment a "double standard", which it OBVIOUSLY was not, at
least for anyone capable of parsing a simple sentence in
English:
Wow! I guess "admit" has a different meaning in JillWorld,So your comment wasn't meant to imply that I had a doubleYou could point out exactly where I wrote that "sparring
So sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>>>>>> showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't >>>>>>> expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.
with Nando is showing stamina", but I won't hold my breath
waiting. I have both of them killfiled, but of course that
means nothing to you WRT your assertion.
Sure, just as soon as you point out exactly where I wrote that you
wrote... Glenn much?
standard WRT JTEM vs Nando, even though you used that phrase
in your comment regarding my supposed different view of
wasting time with Nando vs wasting time with JTEM? OK.
So you admit those are your double-standards? OK.
as does "supposed different view".
As someone you seem to hold in exceptionally high regard
So you admit that your comments are irrelevant to prior comments? OK.
So you admit that your explicit accusation against jillery is
OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect? OK.
Buyt when a response a comment begins "So..." (IOW, "That
implies...") it seems to me that is exactly what you
intended.
It seems to me you're determined to imagine whatever pleases you.
would say, "Pot. Kettle. Black".
Oh, OBVIOUSLY. <eyeroll...>
My
"so" which twisted your knickers OBVIOUSLY identifies a summary of all
the comments up to that point.
Again, Pot. Kettle. Black.
And my "assertion" isn't informed by whom you have killfiled.You seem incapable of being informed by almost anything.
Your word games continue to ape Glenn's.
The fact that I have both killfiled should be evidence that
your statement regarding my supposed different views of the
two idiots in question is incorrect.
Once again, point out where I said those were your views.
Once again, your failure to do so would qualify as your admission that
your explicit accusation is once again OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect.
But of course, that you
might be incorrect is simply not possible, right?
But of course, that you enjoy raising yet more stupid manufactured
arguments is simply not possible, right?
Or maybe "Mote. Beam. Eye."
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
same themed movie it seems jillery may eventually crawl out of a well and >then your computer monitor screen if things keep up this way. Does that >particular movie ring a bell?
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 03:15:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 18:36:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>This below, your *first* comment in this thread, was
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:04:42 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 08:23:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:49:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:06:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>: >>>>>>>>
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:06:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:Some people like to spar with trolls, and especially with
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:I've tried with both ... Nando I don't understand, but JTEM is sometimes
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:56:02 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:It's odd how rebutting Nando is credited as "having stamina", but >>>>>>>>>> rebutting JTEM is generally discouraged and specifically criticized.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:36:02?AM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap >>>>>>>>>>>>> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You sure have stamina.
Good that he has. Nando does not write batshit crazy stuff lately about going
somewhere to beat up people for whatever bad doing he imagined. He is still
often impossible to decipher but that will perhaps remain like so. >>>>>>>>>>
Yet another example of not what is said but who says it.
too difficult to take even half seriously.
idiots like the JTEM creature. No accounting for taste, as
the man said as he kissed the cow...
OBVIOUSLY designed to start an argument by calling my
comment a "double standard", which it OBVIOUSLY was not, at
least for anyone capable of parsing a simple sentence in
English:
Japanese ghost story movies were a passing fad a couple decades ago. The >Grudge comes to mind. This grudge hasn’t passed yet, though from another >same themed movie it seems jillery may eventually crawl out of a well and >then your computer monitor screen if things keep up this way. Does that >particular movie ring a bell?Wow! I guess "admit" has a different meaning in JillWorld,So your comment wasn't meant to imply that I had a doubleSo sparring with JTEM is kissing a cow, while sparring with Nando is >>>>>>> showing stamina. Apparently double-standards comfort you. I didn't >>>>>>> expect even you to prove my point so OBVIOUSLY.You could point out exactly where I wrote that "sparring
with Nando is showing stamina", but I won't hold my breath
waiting. I have both of them killfiled, but of course that
means nothing to you WRT your assertion.
Sure, just as soon as you point out exactly where I wrote that you
wrote... Glenn much?
standard WRT JTEM vs Nando, even though you used that phrase
in your comment regarding my supposed different view of
wasting time with Nando vs wasting time with JTEM? OK.
So you admit those are your double-standards? OK.
as does "supposed different view".
As someone you seem to hold in exceptionally high regard
So you admit that your comments are irrelevant to prior comments? OK.
So you admit that your explicit accusation against jillery is
OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect? OK.
Buyt when a response a comment begins "So..." (IOW, "That
implies...") it seems to me that is exactly what you
intended.
It seems to me you're determined to imagine whatever pleases you.
would say, "Pot. Kettle. Black".
Oh, OBVIOUSLY. <eyeroll...>
My
"so" which twisted your knickers OBVIOUSLY identifies a summary of all
the comments up to that point.
Again, Pot. Kettle. Black.
And my "assertion" isn't informed by whom you have killfiled.You seem incapable of being informed by almost anything.
Your word games continue to ape Glenn's.
The fact that I have both killfiled should be evidence that
your statement regarding my supposed different views of the
two idiots in question is incorrect.
Once again, point out where I said those were your views.
Once again, your failure to do so would qualify as your admission that
your explicit accusation is once again OBVIOUSLY factually incorrect.
But of course, that you
might be incorrect is simply not possible, right?
But of course, that you enjoy raising yet more stupid manufactured
arguments is simply not possible, right?
Or maybe "Mote. Beam. Eye."
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not mentiontypically at all.
And besides that, according to you, dictionary definitions aren't conversational definitions without strict logic, according to you, dictionary definitions must be strictly followed, otherwise you are just arbitrarily fantasizing meaning of words. Butthat ofcourse was just yet another dishonesty on your part.
Ofcourse the whole google definition does not function logically, but according to you, concepts don't need to function logically, because it is impossible for a concept to function.
So basically you already discarded logic altogether, as being impossible.
Idiot, that in the same moment that the one possiblity is chosen, the other possiblity is negated, means there is zero time to evaluate anything.
Once you enter the evaluation into the definition of choosing,
then you lose the property of the decision, that in the moment, it can turn out one way or another.
You lose the moment of decision. And that a decision can turn out one way or another, is the essential part of a decision.
And that is why all decisions are essentially spontaneous.
Which obviously leaves deciding in terms of what is best to be a complicated way of deciding, involving many decisions.
All of which decisions are essentially spontaneous. Which is very obvious that to decide in terms of what is best, you also have to choose what values to evaluate the options with, etc.
So you lie about people not defining choosing in terms of what is best.
You further lie that a decision in terms of what is best is a single decision, while in truth it is several decisions.
You further lie that the normal definition of spontaneity is not in terms of that in the moment it can turn out one way or another.
As I have seen that many times, also in reference to randomness.
You further lie that you do not hold the position that decisions require evaluation in terms of what is best.
Eventhough you said you don't a thousand times, you were simply lying a thousand time.
Because it is shown, you do in fact hold the position that decisions require to figure out what is best.
To make a decision in terms of what is best, then it just depends on what values you are using to evaluate options. A killer will evaluate the options how best to kill someone. So decisions in terms of what is best, aren't neccessarily judged as good.
Yet you insist that deciding in terms of what is best, is what any prudent person does, that it is always good.
Which can only mean that you define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.
And ofcourse it is especially crazy people who define choosing in terms of what is best.
Who are not spontaneous. Who are caught up in all sorts of calculation of what is best, like a computer, without any emotion. That is ofcourse a common test, whether someone can be trusted, to see how they are spontaneously.
So children, when the police come, then they want to know the facts about what happened. That means they want to make an exact reconstruction of what occurred in the police report. Children would understand the logic of fact, better than you. And thenofcourse, the police may also enquire about the spirit in which the perpetrators committed their act.
Then you can choose an opinion,
were they careless, mean, bad, evil, or were they just innocent, not aware that what they were doing is against the law?
Do you really think this cannot be taught in school?
Oh wait, that was just another lie on your part.
Idiot, subjectivity functions too
, it is functional logic
It works to produce personal opinions. And ofcourse billions of people believe in God, and pray to God.
And when you consider the setup of prayer, how it works, it makes perfect sense that this would lead to better personal opinions.
Op zaterdag 5 augustus 2023 om 18:36:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:to the will of God. And that is what makes me an honest person, while you on the other hand are a liar, who will go to hell.
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 09:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, you are lying that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option. They most certainly do do that, a majority of them, including yourself. It's in the google definition, number 1.There are two definitions given. Did you not read the second, which
reads "decide on a course of action ***typically*** after rejecting
alternatives". Note: "typically". What do you think that means? It
means that it is not an essential part of the definition, just what is
commonly done.
You do it yourself, because when you say decisions are not essentially spontaneous,I have never said that. You're completely free to make all your
decisions spontaneously if you like. But why would you do something
that silly?
it can only mean you assert some evaluation process between the possiblities that is going on, which is choosing in terms of what is best.Yes, a prudent person will do just that. But a spontaneous choice
without considering the alternatives is still a choice. I have been
saying that all along you illiterate twat.
In the same moment that a decision turns out A, the possiblity of the decision turning out B is negated.So what you're saying is that if you choose A, you don't choose B.
Yes, that's as obvious as "water is wet".
That is what it means that decisions are essentially spontaneous.Not for any normal English definition of "spontaneous". Again, you're
making up your own definitions for words. Why?
You cannot have a decision that can turn out either A or B, without the negation of the other possiblity, at the same time that the other possiblity is made the present.Yes. SO WHAT? Again, this is no greater an insight than "water is
wet". What the hell is your point?
You make the logic of a chesscomputer calculating a move, in a forced way, which is a selection process, into a decision. Your decisions could not have turned out any other way than they did.Sure they could. Again, people are free to make bad choices if they
want to. But why would they want to?
But you know this, you just continuously like to lie about it,I have said nothing untrue.
because this is what you are all about. Everything you say is dishonesty, lying, so that you can define choosing in terms of what is best.For what has to be the ten thousandth time, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING
THAT WAY. I simply observe that a non-crazy person will WANT to make
the best available decision. Do you really not understand the huge
difference? If you don't, then I'm afraid I can't help you: go take a
remedial course in English.
I guess with feelings of egotism associated to it, feelings of control, feelings of the best.Or wanting the best possible outcome. What exactly is your problem
with that?
I believe you know I am right, and you perceive me to be a great danger to the way you areNo, I believe that you're badly confused about pretty much everything,
not just "choosing".
. Basically you are a drug addict, addicted to the psycho active substances that the brain / body produces itself. Somehow you can manipulate the psychoactive substances, with this definition of choosing in terms of what is best.WTF is your mental malfunction? Again, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT
WAY. I HAVE STATED THAT REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. You're wasting both
our time ranting at me about a position that I DO NOT HOLD.
Generate the feelings of the best, and whatever. It is worth your time to try to stop the very clear creationist conceptual schemeYour "creationist conceptual scheme" is two groups of five words each
that don't communicate anything to anyone but you. How exactly does
one "stop" word salad?
, because you know that it is correct, and could easily be brought into schools everywhere, to teach fact and opinion as a basic subject, to every student.I would love to be a fly on the wall when you propose that to school
officials, and they tell you the same thing I'm telling you: it's not
even wrong. It's a meaningless grouping of words that has significance
to no one besides you, and your "explanations" of it inevitably
devolve into gibberish because you insist on redefining every other
word you use.
Subjective means, identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means identified with a model of it.Not to anyone who isn't you.
And the subjective part of reality is the part that chooses,Complete and utter nonsense.
and the objective part of it, is the part that is chosen, creator and creation.Again, complete and utter nonsense.
It is very simple, certainly more simple than the rules of chess.It's also completely nonsensical as described.
There is the spiritual domain,
and the material domain, subjective and objective, respectively. And the lord God is in the spiritual domain, and I submit my will to the will of God, in prayer. Talking to God about what I should do in life, within worship, it is my will submitted
could have been chosen instead.OK, so you've now completely abandoned any pretense at rationality,
and are diving into religious woo-woo instead. So much for your
"functional logic".
You can see, it is all your own doing that you yourself throw out your own true emotions, throw out your own true personal character, and exchange them for these feelings associated to defining choosing in terms of what is best.Again, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED THAT
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. You are AGAIN wasting both our time
criticizing a position that I DO NOT HOLD. Why?
It is not some kind of coincedence that google defines choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. It is also not some kind of coincedence that you lie about it that google does this.I have never done so. What I have pointed out is that it is not an
essential part of the definition, just what normal, non-crazy people
do when choosing.
You depend on lying about it.Again, I have said nothing untrue.
Op vrijdag 4 augustus 2023 om 15:21:02 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 08:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, when you say that people do not redefine choosing in terms of what is best, then that is a lie.It's what most people do when they choose, It's not an essential part
of any definition of the word. Do you seriously not grasp that
distinction?
And obviously I do not use the dictionary definition of the verb choose, by google. Nor do I use the dictionary definition of subjectivity. So I do not appeal to the dictionary for any wordYou literally just appealed to the dictionary over the definition of
choose, and you're continuing to argue for it. For fuck's sake, are
you seriously THAT confused?
. I have a more efficient and critical understanding than ordinary dictionaries, which are mostly conversational defintions, and not strictly logical.Translation: As I have noted dozens of times, and as you acknowledge,
you keep making up your own definitions for words. Why? It makes it
impossible for people who actually speak the language that you're
torturing to figure out what the hell you're trying to say. For
someone who is so insistent that his ideas are so important, THAT'S A
REALLY STUPID CHOICE.
You on the other hand insist on the dictionary definition for subjectivity,You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never done that. But
you just quote it verbatim,
I do note that IF YOU WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, you ought to use standard
definitions for words. Making up your own definitions GUARANTEES THAT
YOU WON'T BE UNDERSTOOD.
Do you seriously not see how self-defeating that is?
which doesn't demonstrate any understanding of it. And then you argue it is wrong not to follow the dictionary.No, I point out that making up your own definitions for words
guarantees that no one will be able to understand you. For what has to
be the hundredth time. Do you still not get such a basic point?
And then contrary to your own argument that the dictionary must be followed, you say the dictionary definition for the verb choose, on google, is wrong.No,I said that making the best possible choice is not an essential
part of the definition, just what normal, non-crazy people will do in
a given situation. Google is right to include that, but again, it is
common practice, not an essential part of the definition.
So all what you say is dishonesty. You're demonstrably a liar.Nope. It's just your inability to read English for comprehension.
Now if you wouldn't lie about all of this, then you would consider that the essence of a decision is, that it in can turn out one way or another in the moment. Which means that a decision is essentially spontaneous. That if A is chosen, that B
That decisions require at least two options is a given. It does NOT
logically follow from this that "a decision is essentially
spontaneous". That's your own weird obsession talking.
And then ofcourse with decisions in terms of spontaneity, then the decision maker could not be any objective thing, because what is objective can only force
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:typically at all.
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not mention
It's not my problem if you're unable to read English forthat ofcourse was just yet another dishonesty on your part.
comprehension. And yes, the second definition does, in fact use that
word. I even highlighted it for you. Do you even bother to read what
you're responding to?
And besides that, according to you, dictionary definitions aren't conversational definitions without strict logic, according to you, dictionary definitions must be strictly followed, otherwise you are just arbitrarily fantasizing meaning of words. But
I said no such thing. Try again,ofcourse, the police may also enquire about the spirit in which the perpetrators committed their act.
Ofcourse the whole google definition does not function logically, but according to you, concepts don't need to function logically, because it is impossible for a concept to function.Concepts don't *do* anything. To say that they "function" is a
category error. Or that you're making up your own definitions of
either "concept", "function", or both.
So basically you already discarded logic altogether, as being impossible.Not at all, I have simply not yet encountered logic in anything you've written thus far.
Idiot, that in the same moment that the one possiblity is chosen, the other possiblity is negated, means there is zero time to evaluate anything.How about doing so BEFORE YOU CHOOSE, Einstein? Seriously, you're
being too silly for words.
Once you enter the evaluation into the definition of choosing,Once again, I AM NOT DOING ANY SUCH THING. There is a huge difference between making evaluation part of the DEFINITION of choosing, and
saying that a prudent person would do so in choosing.
Do you seriously not grasp that distinction? If you don't, then
seriously, take a remedial course in English. They are not the same
thing at all.
then you lose the property of the decision, that in the moment, it can turn out one way or another.What, exactly, is "the essential part of a decision" even supposed to
You lose the moment of decision. And that a decision can turn out one way or another, is the essential part of a decision.
mean?
And that is why all decisions are essentially spontaneous.That doesn't follow at all. That's how toddlers and felons make
decisions. It's not how rational adults approach life.
Which obviously leaves deciding in terms of what is best to be a complicated way of deciding, involving many decisions.That's not "obvious" at all. I understand that thinking likely makes
your brain hurt, but "deciding in terms of what is best" is frequently
quite simple. Quick, you want some honey. Which is best: walk down to
the supermarket and buy a jar, or train a bear to steal it from wild beehives, and bring it home to you? Don't take too long on this, it
MUST be spontaneous by your rules...
All of which decisions are essentially spontaneous. Which is very obvious that to decide in terms of what is best, you also have to choose what values to evaluate the options with, etc.Yes, that's part of being a rational adult.
So you lie about people not defining choosing in terms of what is best. Again, if you can't grasp the distinction between DEFINING it in thatway, and noting that it's what a prudent person would WANT to do, then
why are you posting in a language that you don't understand?
You further lie that a decision in terms of what is best is a single decision, while in truth it is several decisions.I have said no such thing at any point.
You further lie that the normal definition of spontaneity is not in terms of that in the moment it can turn out one way or another.I have said no such thing at any point.
As I have seen that many times, also in reference to randomness.Spontaneity and randomness are similar, but not necessarily
synonymous.
You further lie that you do not hold the position that decisions require evaluation in terms of what is best.No, that's entirely true. I don't hold that position. I have stated
that VERY clearly. I have also explained to you on each occasion what
my actual position is. That you have continued to ignore this, and
insist on attributing to me a position that I don't hold, is
completely bizarre.
Eventhough you said you don't a thousand times, you were simply lying a thousand time.I have literally no motive to lie about my position.
Because it is shown, you do in fact hold the position that decisions require to figure out what is best.No, I do not, and I have repeatedly stated that. If you can't
understand the huge difference between "decisions require to figure
out what is best" (that's really clumsy English, by the way), and "you should WANT to make the best available decision" then you are clearly incapable of reading for comprehension in English at all. The two
statements aren't remotely similar in meaning.
To make a decision in terms of what is best, then it just depends on what values you are using to evaluate options. A killer will evaluate the options how best to kill someone. So decisions in terms of what is best, aren't neccessarily judged as good.Who said they were?
Yet you insist that deciding in terms of what is best, is what any prudent person does, that it is always good.I have said no such thing. I have said that making the best available decision is what any prudent person does when given a choice. The last
part, "that it is always good", is your own addition that I neither
said nor implied. Moreover, you're conflating two very different
usages of "good" here: the former meaning "optimal", and the latter
meaning "morally correct". Whether you're doing this deliberately, or whether you're just free-associating in your usual quasi-schizophrenic manner is not clear (and I don't much care at this point).
Which can only mean that you define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.Again, NO I DON'T. How many times do I have to explain the rather
large distinction to you?
And ofcourse it is especially crazy people who define choosing in terms of what is best.Well, you're the expert on what crazy people do...
Who are not spontaneous. Who are caught up in all sorts of calculation of what is best, like a computer, without any emotion. That is ofcourse a common test, whether someone can be trusted, to see how they are spontaneously.You're every con artist's dream mark if you really believe that.
So children, when the police come, then they want to know the facts about what happened. That means they want to make an exact reconstruction of what occurred in the police report. Children would understand the logic of fact, better than you. And then
Police officers investigating a crime are interested in the facts, not
the opinions of the witnesses of "the spirit in which the perpetrators committed their act" .You're a looney.
Then you can choose an opinion,People don't normally "choose" their opinions.
were they careless, mean, bad, evil, or were they just innocent, not aware that what they were doing is against the law?The police aren't interested in a witness's opinions on these matters.
Do you really think this cannot be taught in school?That what can't be taught in schools? This has no relation to actual
police work, nor, as far as I can tell, to literally anything else previously discussed.
Oh wait, that was just another lie on your part.What was?
Idiot, subjectivity functions too
Concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
, it is functional logic
What is? Subjectivity? Complete and utter nonsense.
It works to produce personal opinions. And ofcourse billions of people believe in God, and pray to God.So what? Billions of people over the ages have thought that the Earth
is flat. It isn't. Or that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
They don't.
And when you consider the setup of prayer, how it works, it makes perfect sense that this would lead to better personal opinions.How so?
Idiot, choosing is a reality of physics.
The physical things can turn out one way or another in the moment.
Then obviously science must be logical,
the concept must work,
and the concept doesn't just exist, whatever that means.
The function of choosing, is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.
You can go left, or right, choose left, meaning that the alternative possible future of going left, becomes to be the present.
You just throw out logic as a defensive move,
in your debating game, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the truth. You obviously do not care about the truth. It is ofcourse one outrage against reason, after another.
You still lie that people generally do not define choosing in terms of what is best, while the google definition says so.
And ofcourse I have the personal experience of debating a lot of people
and looking at the work of intellectuals, which confirms that it is true, that especially academically educated people, mostly define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.
You further lie about that you did not say that choosing in terms of what is best, is always good.
You ridiculed the idea of spontaneous choosing, as what criminals do.
Ofcourse, when you say spontaneous decisions are real, but different from choosing in terms of what is best
it can only mean that you use two different definitions for the word choosing.
Fundamentally different definitions, with totally different logic.
Ofcourse it makes no sense to first figure out what is best, and then have a spontaneous decision,
a decision that can turn out one way or another in the moment, after you just ridiculed the idea of spontaneous decisions as what criminals do. So you are once again caught up in your web of lies.
You also don't understand the meaning of the word essential, like you don't understand the meaning of the word spontaneous.
Which is obviously just because you found it convenient as a debating strategy, not to understand these things.
You also failed to understand, for your own convience, that the reference to the police is about teaching fact and opinion to children in school, which can easily be done
. And actually the police are commonly interested in people's personal opinions about what kind of mood someone was in.
Which is also part fact, like facial expression, and whatnot, but also part personal opinion.
And it's a good thing if children are taught be excellent observers, who know to exactly copy events to their mind,
and to express meaningful personal opinions besides, to know how to separate them.
That is emancipation of the individual.
Ofcourse you are the one who is abnormal in regards to going crazy over the mention of the word spirit.
It is people's right to acknowledge their emotions.
And then you cannot be so meanspirited to make a fuss about a word that is really essential basic terminology.
As you do not object to the word material to faciliate objectivity, you cannot object to the word spiritual to facillitate subjectivity, because that is meanspirited.
Here you can reconsider your "opinion" that Geert Vanden Bossche is a crackpot.
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/who-and-the-pandemic-t-h-reat-h-y-is-the-c-19-emergency-over
Op zondag 6 augustus 2023 om 19:11:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:typically at all.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not mention
But that ofcourse was just yet another dishonesty on your part.It's not my problem if you're unable to read English for
comprehension. And yes, the second definition does, in fact use that
word. I even highlighted it for you. Do you even bother to read what
you're responding to?
And besides that, according to you, dictionary definitions aren't conversational definitions without strict logic, according to you, dictionary definitions must be strictly followed, otherwise you are just arbitrarily fantasizing meaning of words.
then ofcourse, the police may also enquire about the spirit in which the perpetrators committed their act.I said no such thing. Try again,
Ofcourse the whole google definition does not function logically, but according to you, concepts don't need to function logically, because it is impossible for a concept to function.Concepts don't *do* anything. To say that they "function" is a
category error. Or that you're making up your own definitions of
either "concept", "function", or both.
So basically you already discarded logic altogether, as being impossible. >> Not at all, I have simply not yet encountered logic in anything you'vewritten thus far.
How about doing so BEFORE YOU CHOOSE, Einstein? Seriously, you're
Idiot, that in the same moment that the one possiblity is chosen, the other possiblity is negated, means there is zero time to evaluate anything.
being too silly for words.
Once you enter the evaluation into the definition of choosing,Once again, I AM NOT DOING ANY SUCH THING. There is a huge difference
between making evaluation part of the DEFINITION of choosing, and
saying that a prudent person would do so in choosing.
Do you seriously not grasp that distinction? If you don't, then
seriously, take a remedial course in English. They are not the same
thing at all.
then you lose the property of the decision, that in the moment, it can turn out one way or another.What, exactly, is "the essential part of a decision" even supposed to
You lose the moment of decision. And that a decision can turn out one way or another, is the essential part of a decision.
mean?
And that is why all decisions are essentially spontaneous.That doesn't follow at all. That's how toddlers and felons make
decisions. It's not how rational adults approach life.
Which obviously leaves deciding in terms of what is best to be a complicated way of deciding, involving many decisions.That's not "obvious" at all. I understand that thinking likely makes
your brain hurt, but "deciding in terms of what is best" is frequently
quite simple. Quick, you want some honey. Which is best: walk down to
the supermarket and buy a jar, or train a bear to steal it from wild
beehives, and bring it home to you? Don't take too long on this, it
MUST be spontaneous by your rules...
All of which decisions are essentially spontaneous. Which is very obvious that to decide in terms of what is best, you also have to choose what values to evaluate the options with, etc.Yes, that's part of being a rational adult.
So you lie about people not defining choosing in terms of what is best.Again, if you can't grasp the distinction between DEFINING it in that
way, and noting that it's what a prudent person would WANT to do, then
why are you posting in a language that you don't understand?
You further lie that a decision in terms of what is best is a single decision, while in truth it is several decisions.I have said no such thing at any point.
You further lie that the normal definition of spontaneity is not in terms of that in the moment it can turn out one way or another.I have said no such thing at any point.
As I have seen that many times, also in reference to randomness.Spontaneity and randomness are similar, but not necessarily
synonymous.
You further lie that you do not hold the position that decisions require evaluation in terms of what is best.No, that's entirely true. I don't hold that position. I have stated
that VERY clearly. I have also explained to you on each occasion what
my actual position is. That you have continued to ignore this, and
insist on attributing to me a position that I don't hold, is
completely bizarre.
Eventhough you said you don't a thousand times, you were simply lying a thousand time.I have literally no motive to lie about my position.
Because it is shown, you do in fact hold the position that decisions require to figure out what is best.No, I do not, and I have repeatedly stated that. If you can't
understand the huge difference between "decisions require to figure
out what is best" (that's really clumsy English, by the way), and "you
should WANT to make the best available decision" then you are clearly
incapable of reading for comprehension in English at all. The two
statements aren't remotely similar in meaning.
To make a decision in terms of what is best, then it just depends on what values you are using to evaluate options. A killer will evaluate the options how best to kill someone. So decisions in terms of what is best, aren't neccessarily judged as good.Who said they were?
Yet you insist that deciding in terms of what is best, is what any prudent person does, that it is always good.I have said no such thing. I have said that making the best available
decision is what any prudent person does when given a choice. The last
part, "that it is always good", is your own addition that I neither
said nor implied. Moreover, you're conflating two very different
usages of "good" here: the former meaning "optimal", and the latter
meaning "morally correct". Whether you're doing this deliberately, or
whether you're just free-associating in your usual quasi-schizophrenic
manner is not clear (and I don't much care at this point).
Which can only mean that you define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.Again, NO I DON'T. How many times do I have to explain the rather
large distinction to you?
And ofcourse it is especially crazy people who define choosing in terms of what is best.Well, you're the expert on what crazy people do...
Who are not spontaneous. Who are caught up in all sorts of calculation of what is best, like a computer, without any emotion. That is ofcourse a common test, whether someone can be trusted, to see how they are spontaneously.You're every con artist's dream mark if you really believe that.
So children, when the police come, then they want to know the facts about what happened. That means they want to make an exact reconstruction of what occurred in the police report. Children would understand the logic of fact, better than you. And
Police officers investigating a crime are interested in the facts, not
the opinions of the witnesses of "the spirit in which the perpetrators
committed their act" .You're a looney.
Then you can choose an opinion,People don't normally "choose" their opinions.
were they careless, mean, bad, evil, or were they just innocent, not aware that what they were doing is against the law?The police aren't interested in a witness's opinions on these matters.
Do you really think this cannot be taught in school?That what can't be taught in schools? This has no relation to actual
police work, nor, as far as I can tell, to literally anything else
previously discussed.
Oh wait, that was just another lie on your part.What was?
Idiot, subjectivity functions too
Concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
, it is functional logic
What is? Subjectivity? Complete and utter nonsense.
It works to produce personal opinions. And ofcourse billions of people believe in God, and pray to God.So what? Billions of people over the ages have thought that the Earth
is flat. It isn't. Or that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
They don't.
And when you consider the setup of prayer, how it works, it makes perfect sense that this would lead to better personal opinions.How so?
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory.
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:32:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:mention typically at all.
Idiot, choosing is a reality of physics.No, it isn't. You're spouting nonsense.
The physical things can turn out one way or another in the moment.So we're all the way back to your insane notion that inanimate objects
make choices? That's hilarious. But also completely disconnected from reality.
Then obviously science must be logical,Science involves logic, yes, but that doesn't follow from anything you
just wrote.
the concept must work,
For what definition of work? How does an abstract concept "do"
anything at all? Be as specific as you like.
and the concept doesn't just exist, whatever that means.If you don't know what "exist" means, then I would suggest that you
wait until you understand basic English a LOT better than you do now
before you post again in that language. It would make your own life a
lot easier.
The function of choosing, is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.That's a very clumsy, and fairly inaccurate, way of describing it. Is
there a language that you're fluent in, and have you considered
posting in it, rather than abusing English?
You can go left, or right, choose left, meaning that the alternative possible future of going left, becomes to be the present.It does when you actually do it, not when you make the decision to do
it. That's why your definition is not a good one.
You just throw out logic as a defensive move,What does that mean?
in your debating game, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the truth. You obviously do not care about the truth. It is ofcourse one outrage against reason, after another.You wouldn't recognize reason if I spotted you "RE_SON" and let you
buy a vowel.
You still lie that people generally do not define choosing in terms of what is best, while the google definition says so.The second definition clarifies that this is typical, not mandatory.
Do you not understand the distinction? No, of course you don't.
And ofcourse I have the personal experience of debating a lot of peopleDebating requires addressing what your opponent actually says, rather
than whatever you imagine they actually believe. You aren't debating
here: you're making up positions for me, and criticizing them, rather
than anything I actually say. Why?
and looking at the work of intellectuals, which confirms that it is true, that especially academically educated people, mostly define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.Give three examples here, with citations. Take as much time as you
like. I'll wait.
You further lie about that you did not say that choosing in terms of what is best, is always good.I never said any such thing. I said that it's what a rational adult
would normally do. Whether that's "good" or not is another matter
entirely, and as I pointed out, whether intentionally or not, you're conflating two very different usages of the word "good" here: optimal
for the situation, or morally correct.
You ridiculed the idea of spontaneous choosing, as what criminals do.Making EVERY decision spontaneously is indeed the territory of
toddlers and felons. More fool you if you don't understand that.
Ofcourse, when you say spontaneous decisions are real, but different from choosing in terms of what is bestYou have argued exactly that. As do I. What's your issue here? We
appear to be in agreement, at least as far as I can tell.
it can only mean that you use two different definitions for the word choosing.That doesn't follow.
Fundamentally different definitions, with totally different logic.The motive for a choice, whether spontaneous whim, or careful
reflection, is fundamentally irrelevant to the definition of "choice".
Ofcourse it makes no sense to first figure out what is best, and then have a spontaneous decision,We agree on that.
a decision that can turn out one way or another in the moment, after you just ridiculed the idea of spontaneous decisions as what criminals do. So you are once again caught up in your web of lies.Lack of impulse control is, in fact, characteristic of both toddlers
and criminals. Why you think it's an asset is puzzling, to say the
least.
You also don't understand the meaning of the word essential, like you don't understand the meaning of the word spontaneous.Let's clarify that a bit. I'm a native English speaker. I understand
the normal meanings of both words perfectly well. What I don't know is
what the hell YOU mean by them, since you insist on making up your own definitions.
Which is obviously just because you found it convenient as a debating strategy, not to understand these things.Or because you're making up your own definitions for words that don't comport with their normal usage in English. Have you ever considered
not doing that?
You also failed to understand, for your own convience, that the reference to the police is about teaching fact and opinion to children in school, which can easily be doneOh, is that what you were trying to say? Sure it can, but your
"Creationist Conceptual Scheme" won't help in that in the least,
because IT DOESN'T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AS PHRASED, and your attempts
at explaining it don't explain anything.
. And actually the police are commonly interested in people's personal opinions about what kind of mood someone was in.No, the police typically aren't interested in that at all. They're interested in facts, not opinions.
Which is also part fact, like facial expression, and whatnot, but also part personal opinion.
And it's a good thing if children are taught be excellent observers, who know to exactly copy events to their mind,No human can do that. That's why eyewitness testimony is among the
least reliable types of evidence.
and to express meaningful personal opinions besides, to know how to separate them.Yes, knowing the difference between opinion and fact is, in fact,
quite important. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED LEARNING HOW TO DO SO???
That is emancipation of the individual.Agreed. When can you start working on both?
Ofcourse you are the one who is abnormal in regards to going crazy over the mention of the word spirit.Functional logic or spirit. Pick only one.
It is people's right to acknowledge their emotions.Of course it is. But what does "spirit", a woo-woo term if there ever
was one, have to do with that?
And then you cannot be so meanspirited to make a fuss about a word that is really essential basic terminology.To no one besides you.
As you do not object to the word material to faciliate objectivity, you cannot object to the word spiritual to facillitate subjectivity, because that is meanspirited.No, it's because you're trying to smuggle in nonsense by using the
word.
Here you can reconsider your "opinion" that Geert Vanden Bossche is a crackpot.You're the crackpot if you think I'm going to waste my time on a
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/who-and-the-pandemic-t-h-reat-h-y-is-the-c-19-emergency-over
video. Post a transcript if you really think it's important.
Op zondag 6 augustus 2023 om 19:11:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not
But that ofcourse was just yet another dishonesty on your part.It's not my problem if you're unable to read English for
comprehension. And yes, the second definition does, in fact use that
word. I even highlighted it for you. Do you even bother to read what
you're responding to?
And besides that, according to you, dictionary definitions aren't conversational definitions without strict logic, according to you, dictionary definitions must be strictly followed, otherwise you are just arbitrarily fantasizing meaning of words.
I said no such thing. Try again,
Ofcourse the whole google definition does not function logically, but according to you, concepts don't need to function logically, because it is impossible for a concept to function.Concepts don't *do* anything. To say that they "function" is a
category error. Or that you're making up your own definitions of
either "concept", "function", or both.
So basically you already discarded logic altogether, as being impossible.Not at all, I have simply not yet encountered logic in anything you've
written thus far.
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory.
We are the champions:
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>We are the champions:
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory.
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>We are the champions:
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory.
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 18:51:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appearedNext time try wording "You argued better and won."
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>We are the champions:
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory.
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
Perhaps without any scare quotes or smilies.
You are a total moron, who does not understand, or even accept logic. Who is dishonest in every way, who lies all the time. You don't understand the words spontaeous, or essential, when used in normal sentences.
You also don't understand the word impulsive, which applies to breaking through the regular organization of decision making processes. While spontaneity is just in the regular order. You pretend that all spontaneity is impulsiveness.
If you don't follow logic, if you have no functional concepts, then obviously all what you say is just gibberish.
Physics certainly shows that events that can turn out one way or another in the moment, are real.
Spontaneity abounds in the universe. That you do not call these events decisions, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best.
Because physics certainly does not say that any figuring out what is best occurs in these events.
So that the lack of figuring out what is best, is why you say it is ridiculous that these events are decisions.
Ofcourse you were always lying that you do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.
You are also just lying about the police. Police are definitely interested in people's personal opinions about whether a suspect seemed nervous, angry, happy, whatever, which is a matter of personal opinion. Just another obvious casual lie on your part.You cannot stop yourself lying all the time.
The creationist conceptual scheme provides the basic terminology for subjectivity and objectivity, and the logic of it.
Ofcourse asswipe, all your concepts have no functional logic to begin with, because you consider the idea of concepts having functional logic, a way in which they work, to be impossible.
The only reason you see no functional logic in the creationist conceptual scheme, is because you have thrown out the idea of functional logic altogether.
I am guessing that the reason that you have thrown out functional logic, is because you are an authoritarian, who refers everything to himself. That the meaning of a word is whatever you want it to mean.
One of the benefits of making a total fucking mess of everything as you do, is that you continuously have to refer to yourself to solve a conceptual problem. It is all extra attention for yourself, much as like how socialists govern countries, by makinga mess of everything, and then all attention is on the government to solve the mess.
Your opinions about Geert Vanden Bossche, and Rand Paul, are obviously worthless rubbish.
As probably all your personal opinions are rubbish, on any issue.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 04:46:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:mention typically at all.
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:32:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, choosing is a reality of physics.No, it isn't. You're spouting nonsense.
The physical things can turn out one way or another in the moment.So we're all the way back to your insane notion that inanimate objects
make choices? That's hilarious. But also completely disconnected from
reality.
Then obviously science must be logical,Science involves logic, yes, but that doesn't follow from anything you
just wrote.
the concept must work,
For what definition of work? How does an abstract concept "do"
anything at all? Be as specific as you like.
and the concept doesn't just exist, whatever that means.If you don't know what "exist" means, then I would suggest that you
wait until you understand basic English a LOT better than you do now
before you post again in that language. It would make your own life a
lot easier.
The function of choosing, is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.That's a very clumsy, and fairly inaccurate, way of describing it. Is
there a language that you're fluent in, and have you considered
posting in it, rather than abusing English?
You can go left, or right, choose left, meaning that the alternative possible future of going left, becomes to be the present.It does when you actually do it, not when you make the decision to do
it. That's why your definition is not a good one.
You just throw out logic as a defensive move,What does that mean?
in your debating game, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the truth. You obviously do not care about the truth. It is ofcourse one outrage against reason, after another.You wouldn't recognize reason if I spotted you "RE_SON" and let you
buy a vowel.
You still lie that people generally do not define choosing in terms of what is best, while the google definition says so.The second definition clarifies that this is typical, not mandatory.
Do you not understand the distinction? No, of course you don't.
And ofcourse I have the personal experience of debating a lot of peopleDebating requires addressing what your opponent actually says, rather
than whatever you imagine they actually believe. You aren't debating
here: you're making up positions for me, and criticizing them, rather
than anything I actually say. Why?
and looking at the work of intellectuals, which confirms that it is true, that especially academically educated people, mostly define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.Give three examples here, with citations. Take as much time as you
like. I'll wait.
You further lie about that you did not say that choosing in terms of what is best, is always good.I never said any such thing. I said that it's what a rational adult
would normally do. Whether that's "good" or not is another matter
entirely, and as I pointed out, whether intentionally or not, you're
conflating two very different usages of the word "good" here: optimal
for the situation, or morally correct.
You ridiculed the idea of spontaneous choosing, as what criminals do.Making EVERY decision spontaneously is indeed the territory of
toddlers and felons. More fool you if you don't understand that.
Ofcourse, when you say spontaneous decisions are real, but different from choosing in terms of what is bestYou have argued exactly that. As do I. What's your issue here? We
appear to be in agreement, at least as far as I can tell.
it can only mean that you use two different definitions for the word choosing.That doesn't follow.
Fundamentally different definitions, with totally different logic.The motive for a choice, whether spontaneous whim, or careful
reflection, is fundamentally irrelevant to the definition of "choice".
Ofcourse it makes no sense to first figure out what is best, and then have a spontaneous decision,We agree on that.
a decision that can turn out one way or another in the moment, after you just ridiculed the idea of spontaneous decisions as what criminals do. So you are once again caught up in your web of lies.Lack of impulse control is, in fact, characteristic of both toddlers
and criminals. Why you think it's an asset is puzzling, to say the
least.
You also don't understand the meaning of the word essential, like you don't understand the meaning of the word spontaneous.Let's clarify that a bit. I'm a native English speaker. I understand
the normal meanings of both words perfectly well. What I don't know is
what the hell YOU mean by them, since you insist on making up your own
definitions.
Which is obviously just because you found it convenient as a debating strategy, not to understand these things.Or because you're making up your own definitions for words that don't
comport with their normal usage in English. Have you ever considered
not doing that?
You also failed to understand, for your own convience, that the reference to the police is about teaching fact and opinion to children in school, which can easily be doneOh, is that what you were trying to say? Sure it can, but your
"Creationist Conceptual Scheme" won't help in that in the least,
because IT DOESN'T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AS PHRASED, and your attempts
at explaining it don't explain anything.
. And actually the police are commonly interested in people's personal opinions about what kind of mood someone was in.No, the police typically aren't interested in that at all. They're
Which is also part fact, like facial expression, and whatnot, but also part personal opinion.
interested in facts, not opinions.
And it's a good thing if children are taught be excellent observers, who know to exactly copy events to their mind,No human can do that. That's why eyewitness testimony is among the
least reliable types of evidence.
and to express meaningful personal opinions besides, to know how to separate them.Yes, knowing the difference between opinion and fact is, in fact,
quite important. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED LEARNING HOW TO DO SO???
That is emancipation of the individual.Agreed. When can you start working on both?
Ofcourse you are the one who is abnormal in regards to going crazy over the mention of the word spirit.Functional logic or spirit. Pick only one.
It is people's right to acknowledge their emotions.Of course it is. But what does "spirit", a woo-woo term if there ever
was one, have to do with that?
And then you cannot be so meanspirited to make a fuss about a word that is really essential basic terminology.To no one besides you.
As you do not object to the word material to faciliate objectivity, you cannot object to the word spiritual to facillitate subjectivity, because that is meanspirited.No, it's because you're trying to smuggle in nonsense by using the
word.
Here you can reconsider your "opinion" that Geert Vanden Bossche is a crackpot.You're the crackpot if you think I'm going to waste my time on a
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/who-and-the-pandemic-t-h-reat-h-y-is-the-c-19-emergency-over
video. Post a transcript if you really think it's important.
Op zondag 6 augustus 2023 om 19:11:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not
But that ofcourse was just yet another dishonesty on your part.It's not my problem if you're unable to read English for
comprehension. And yes, the second definition does, in fact use that
word. I even highlighted it for you. Do you even bother to read what
you're responding to?
And besides that, according to you, dictionary definitions aren't conversational definitions without strict logic, according to you, dictionary definitions must be strictly followed, otherwise you are just arbitrarily fantasizing meaning of words.
I said no such thing. Try again,
Ofcourse the whole google definition does not function logically, but according to you, concepts don't need to function logically, because it is impossible for a concept to function.Concepts don't *do* anything. To say that they "function" is a
category error. Or that you're making up your own definitions of
either "concept", "function", or both.
So basically you already discarded logic altogether, as being impossible.Not at all, I have simply not yet encountered logic in anything you've
written thus far.
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 18:51:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appearedNext time try wording "You argued better and won."
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>We are the champions:
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory.
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
Perhaps without any scare quotes or smilies.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:part. You cannot stop yourself lying all the time.
You are a total moron, who does not understand, or even accept logic. Who is dishonest in every way, who lies all the time. You don't understand the words spontaeous, or essential, when used in normal sentences.Literally every part of that is not just untrue, but projection on
your part.
You also don't understand the word impulsive, which applies to breaking through the regular organization of decision making processes. While spontaneity is just in the regular order. You pretend that all spontaneity is impulsiveness.It is a distinction without a difference. Again, is there a language
that you are actually fluent in, and have you ever considered posting
in that language, instead of English?
If you don't follow logic, if you have no functional concepts, then obviously all what you say is just gibberish.Congratulations! You've perfectly summed up not just your typical
posts, but your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme".
Physics certainly shows that events that can turn out one way or another in the moment, are real.Yes, but there is no choice involved. Inanimate objects can't make
choices.
Spontaneity abounds in the universe. That you do not call these events decisions, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best.No, it means that INANIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a
looney.
Because physics certainly does not say that any figuring out what is best occurs in these events.Neither do I.
So that the lack of figuring out what is best, is why you say it is ridiculous that these events are decisions.It is ridiculous that these events are "decisions" because INANIMATE
OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
Ofcourse you were always lying that you do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.You're still completely wrong about that. I have told you very clearly
what my position actually is, yet you stubbornly maintain that I'm
lying about it. Why? I have literally no possible motive to do so.
You are also just lying about the police. Police are definitely interested in people's personal opinions about whether a suspect seemed nervous, angry, happy, whatever, which is a matter of personal opinion. Just another obvious casual lie on your
Asking how a suspect behaved isn't a matter of opinion, it's a mattermaking a mess of everything, and then all attention is on the government to solve the mess.
of fact. You really are clueless.
The creationist conceptual scheme provides the basic terminology for subjectivity and objectivity, and the logic of it.It does no such thing. It doesn't communicate anything to anyone who
isn't you as phrased.
Ofcourse asswipe, all your concepts have no functional logic to begin with, because you consider the idea of concepts having functional logic, a way in which they work, to be impossible.Abstract concepts don't "do" anything. You're spouting nonsense.
The only reason you see no functional logic in the creationist conceptual scheme, is because you have thrown out the idea of functional logic altogether.No, it's because there isn't any there to see. It's a collection of
two groups of five words each that DOESN'T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING TO
ANYONE WHO ISN'T YOU.
I am guessing that the reason that you have thrown out functional logic, is because you are an authoritarian, who refers everything to himself. That the meaning of a word is whatever you want it to mean.You're projecting so thoroughly here that you could open a movie
theater.
One of the benefits of making a total fucking mess of everything as you do, is that you continuously have to refer to yourself to solve a conceptual problem. It is all extra attention for yourself, much as like how socialists govern countries, by
That's a weird governing philosophy, to say the least. Do you reallymention typically at all.
believe that?
Your opinions about Geert Vanden Bossche, and Rand Paul, are obviously worthless rubbish.Your opinion is duly noted. Why should I take it seriously?
As probably all your personal opinions are rubbish, on any issue.How would you know? You don't actually listen to anything said to you,
so you just make up whatever you imagine my opinions - or anyone
else's - are.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 04:46:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:32:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, choosing is a reality of physics.No, it isn't. You're spouting nonsense.
The physical things can turn out one way or another in the moment.So we're all the way back to your insane notion that inanimate objects
make choices? That's hilarious. But also completely disconnected from
reality.
Then obviously science must be logical,Science involves logic, yes, but that doesn't follow from anything you
just wrote.
the concept must work,
For what definition of work? How does an abstract concept "do"
anything at all? Be as specific as you like.
and the concept doesn't just exist, whatever that means.If you don't know what "exist" means, then I would suggest that you
wait until you understand basic English a LOT better than you do now
before you post again in that language. It would make your own life a
lot easier.
The function of choosing, is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.That's a very clumsy, and fairly inaccurate, way of describing it. Is
there a language that you're fluent in, and have you considered
posting in it, rather than abusing English?
You can go left, or right, choose left, meaning that the alternative possible future of going left, becomes to be the present.It does when you actually do it, not when you make the decision to do
it. That's why your definition is not a good one.
You just throw out logic as a defensive move,What does that mean?
in your debating game, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the truth. You obviously do not care about the truth. It is ofcourse one outrage against reason, after another.You wouldn't recognize reason if I spotted you "RE_SON" and let you
buy a vowel.
You still lie that people generally do not define choosing in terms of what is best, while the google definition says so.The second definition clarifies that this is typical, not mandatory.
Do you not understand the distinction? No, of course you don't.
And ofcourse I have the personal experience of debating a lot of people >> Debating requires addressing what your opponent actually says, ratherthan whatever you imagine they actually believe. You aren't debating
here: you're making up positions for me, and criticizing them, rather
than anything I actually say. Why?
and looking at the work of intellectuals, which confirms that it is true, that especially academically educated people, mostly define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.Give three examples here, with citations. Take as much time as you
like. I'll wait.
You further lie about that you did not say that choosing in terms of what is best, is always good.I never said any such thing. I said that it's what a rational adult
would normally do. Whether that's "good" or not is another matter
entirely, and as I pointed out, whether intentionally or not, you're
conflating two very different usages of the word "good" here: optimal
for the situation, or morally correct.
You ridiculed the idea of spontaneous choosing, as what criminals do.Making EVERY decision spontaneously is indeed the territory of
toddlers and felons. More fool you if you don't understand that.
Ofcourse, when you say spontaneous decisions are real, but different from choosing in terms of what is bestYou have argued exactly that. As do I. What's your issue here? We
appear to be in agreement, at least as far as I can tell.
it can only mean that you use two different definitions for the word choosing.That doesn't follow.
Fundamentally different definitions, with totally different logic.The motive for a choice, whether spontaneous whim, or careful
reflection, is fundamentally irrelevant to the definition of "choice".
Ofcourse it makes no sense to first figure out what is best, and then have a spontaneous decision,We agree on that.
a decision that can turn out one way or another in the moment, after you just ridiculed the idea of spontaneous decisions as what criminals do. So you are once again caught up in your web of lies.Lack of impulse control is, in fact, characteristic of both toddlers
and criminals. Why you think it's an asset is puzzling, to say the
least.
You also don't understand the meaning of the word essential, like you don't understand the meaning of the word spontaneous.Let's clarify that a bit. I'm a native English speaker. I understand
the normal meanings of both words perfectly well. What I don't know is
what the hell YOU mean by them, since you insist on making up your own
definitions.
Which is obviously just because you found it convenient as a debating strategy, not to understand these things.Or because you're making up your own definitions for words that don't
comport with their normal usage in English. Have you ever considered
not doing that?
You also failed to understand, for your own convience, that the reference to the police is about teaching fact and opinion to children in school, which can easily be doneOh, is that what you were trying to say? Sure it can, but your
"Creationist Conceptual Scheme" won't help in that in the least,
because IT DOESN'T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AS PHRASED, and your attempts
at explaining it don't explain anything.
. And actually the police are commonly interested in people's personal opinions about what kind of mood someone was in.No, the police typically aren't interested in that at all. They're
Which is also part fact, like facial expression, and whatnot, but also part personal opinion.
interested in facts, not opinions.
And it's a good thing if children are taught be excellent observers, who know to exactly copy events to their mind,No human can do that. That's why eyewitness testimony is among the
least reliable types of evidence.
and to express meaningful personal opinions besides, to know how to separate them.Yes, knowing the difference between opinion and fact is, in fact,
quite important. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED LEARNING HOW TO DO SO???
That is emancipation of the individual.Agreed. When can you start working on both?
Ofcourse you are the one who is abnormal in regards to going crazy over the mention of the word spirit.Functional logic or spirit. Pick only one.
It is people's right to acknowledge their emotions.Of course it is. But what does "spirit", a woo-woo term if there ever
was one, have to do with that?
And then you cannot be so meanspirited to make a fuss about a word that is really essential basic terminology.To no one besides you.
As you do not object to the word material to faciliate objectivity, you cannot object to the word spiritual to facillitate subjectivity, because that is meanspirited.No, it's because you're trying to smuggle in nonsense by using the
word.
Here you can reconsider your "opinion" that Geert Vanden Bossche is a crackpot.You're the crackpot if you think I'm going to waste my time on a
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/who-and-the-pandemic-t-h-reat-h-y-is-the-c-19-emergency-over
video. Post a transcript if you really think it's important.
Op zondag 6 augustus 2023 om 19:11:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not
words. But that ofcourse was just yet another dishonesty on your part.It's not my problem if you're unable to read English for
comprehension. And yes, the second definition does, in fact use that >> >> word. I even highlighted it for you. Do you even bother to read what >> >> you're responding to?
And besides that, according to you, dictionary definitions aren't conversational definitions without strict logic, according to you, dictionary definitions must be strictly followed, otherwise you are just arbitrarily fantasizing meaning of
I said no such thing. Try again,
Ofcourse the whole google definition does not function logically, but according to you, concepts don't need to function logically, because it is impossible for a concept to function.Concepts don't *do* anything. To say that they "function" is a
category error. Or that you're making up your own definitions of
either "concept", "function", or both.
So basically you already discarded logic altogether, as being impossible.Not at all, I have simply not yet encountered logic in anything you've >> >> written thus far.
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.
Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 19:51:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:part. You cannot stop yourself lying all the time.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You are a total moron, who does not understand, or even accept logic. Who is dishonest in every way, who lies all the time. You don't understand the words spontaeous, or essential, when used in normal sentences.Literally every part of that is not just untrue, but projection on
your part.
You also don't understand the word impulsive, which applies to breaking through the regular organization of decision making processes. While spontaneity is just in the regular order. You pretend that all spontaneity is impulsiveness.It is a distinction without a difference. Again, is there a language
that you are actually fluent in, and have you ever considered posting
in that language, instead of English?
If you don't follow logic, if you have no functional concepts, then obviously all what you say is just gibberish.Congratulations! You've perfectly summed up not just your typical
posts, but your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme".
Physics certainly shows that events that can turn out one way or another in the moment, are real.Yes, but there is no choice involved. Inanimate objects can't make
choices.
Spontaneity abounds in the universe. That you do not call these events decisions, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best.No, it means that INANIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a
looney.
Because physics certainly does not say that any figuring out what is best occurs in these events.Neither do I.
So that the lack of figuring out what is best, is why you say it is ridiculous that these events are decisions.It is ridiculous that these events are "decisions" because INANIMATE
OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
Ofcourse you were always lying that you do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.You're still completely wrong about that. I have told you very clearly
what my position actually is, yet you stubbornly maintain that I'm
lying about it. Why? I have literally no possible motive to do so.
You are also just lying about the police. Police are definitely interested in people's personal opinions about whether a suspect seemed nervous, angry, happy, whatever, which is a matter of personal opinion. Just another obvious casual lie on your
making a mess of everything, and then all attention is on the government to solve the mess.Asking how a suspect behaved isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter
of fact. You really are clueless.
The creationist conceptual scheme provides the basic terminology for subjectivity and objectivity, and the logic of it.It does no such thing. It doesn't communicate anything to anyone who
isn't you as phrased.
Ofcourse asswipe, all your concepts have no functional logic to begin with, because you consider the idea of concepts having functional logic, a way in which they work, to be impossible.Abstract concepts don't "do" anything. You're spouting nonsense.
The only reason you see no functional logic in the creationist conceptual scheme, is because you have thrown out the idea of functional logic altogether.No, it's because there isn't any there to see. It's a collection of
two groups of five words each that DOESN'T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING TO
ANYONE WHO ISN'T YOU.
I am guessing that the reason that you have thrown out functional logic, is because you are an authoritarian, who refers everything to himself. That the meaning of a word is whatever you want it to mean.You're projecting so thoroughly here that you could open a movie
theater.
One of the benefits of making a total fucking mess of everything as you do, is that you continuously have to refer to yourself to solve a conceptual problem. It is all extra attention for yourself, much as like how socialists govern countries, by
mention typically at all.That's a weird governing philosophy, to say the least. Do you really
believe that?
Your opinions about Geert Vanden Bossche, and Rand Paul, are obviously worthless rubbish.Your opinion is duly noted. Why should I take it seriously?
As probably all your personal opinions are rubbish, on any issue.How would you know? You don't actually listen to anything said to you,
so you just make up whatever you imagine my opinions - or anyone
else's - are.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 04:46:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:32:28 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, choosing is a reality of physics.No, it isn't. You're spouting nonsense.
The physical things can turn out one way or another in the moment.So we're all the way back to your insane notion that inanimate objects
make choices? That's hilarious. But also completely disconnected from
reality.
Then obviously science must be logical,Science involves logic, yes, but that doesn't follow from anything you
just wrote.
the concept must work,
For what definition of work? How does an abstract concept "do"
anything at all? Be as specific as you like.
and the concept doesn't just exist, whatever that means.If you don't know what "exist" means, then I would suggest that you
wait until you understand basic English a LOT better than you do now
before you post again in that language. It would make your own life a
lot easier.
The function of choosing, is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.That's a very clumsy, and fairly inaccurate, way of describing it. Is
there a language that you're fluent in, and have you considered
posting in it, rather than abusing English?
You can go left, or right, choose left, meaning that the alternative possible future of going left, becomes to be the present.It does when you actually do it, not when you make the decision to do
it. That's why your definition is not a good one.
You just throw out logic as a defensive move,What does that mean?
in your debating game, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the truth. You obviously do not care about the truth. It is ofcourse one outrage against reason, after another.You wouldn't recognize reason if I spotted you "RE_SON" and let you
buy a vowel.
You still lie that people generally do not define choosing in terms of what is best, while the google definition says so.The second definition clarifies that this is typical, not mandatory.
Do you not understand the distinction? No, of course you don't.
And ofcourse I have the personal experience of debating a lot of people >> >> Debating requires addressing what your opponent actually says, ratherthan whatever you imagine they actually believe. You aren't debating
here: you're making up positions for me, and criticizing them, rather
than anything I actually say. Why?
and looking at the work of intellectuals, which confirms that it is true, that especially academically educated people, mostly define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.Give three examples here, with citations. Take as much time as you
like. I'll wait.
You further lie about that you did not say that choosing in terms of what is best, is always good.I never said any such thing. I said that it's what a rational adult
would normally do. Whether that's "good" or not is another matter
entirely, and as I pointed out, whether intentionally or not, you're
conflating two very different usages of the word "good" here: optimal
for the situation, or morally correct.
You ridiculed the idea of spontaneous choosing, as what criminals do.Making EVERY decision spontaneously is indeed the territory of
toddlers and felons. More fool you if you don't understand that.
Ofcourse, when you say spontaneous decisions are real, but different from choosing in terms of what is bestYou have argued exactly that. As do I. What's your issue here? We
appear to be in agreement, at least as far as I can tell.
it can only mean that you use two different definitions for the word choosing.That doesn't follow.
Fundamentally different definitions, with totally different logic.The motive for a choice, whether spontaneous whim, or careful
reflection, is fundamentally irrelevant to the definition of "choice".
Ofcourse it makes no sense to first figure out what is best, and then have a spontaneous decision,We agree on that.
a decision that can turn out one way or another in the moment, after you just ridiculed the idea of spontaneous decisions as what criminals do. So you are once again caught up in your web of lies.Lack of impulse control is, in fact, characteristic of both toddlers
and criminals. Why you think it's an asset is puzzling, to say the
least.
You also don't understand the meaning of the word essential, like you don't understand the meaning of the word spontaneous.Let's clarify that a bit. I'm a native English speaker. I understand
the normal meanings of both words perfectly well. What I don't know is
what the hell YOU mean by them, since you insist on making up your own
definitions.
Which is obviously just because you found it convenient as a debating strategy, not to understand these things.Or because you're making up your own definitions for words that don't
comport with their normal usage in English. Have you ever considered
not doing that?
You also failed to understand, for your own convience, that the reference to the police is about teaching fact and opinion to children in school, which can easily be doneOh, is that what you were trying to say? Sure it can, but your
"Creationist Conceptual Scheme" won't help in that in the least,
because IT DOESN'T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AS PHRASED, and your attempts
at explaining it don't explain anything.
. And actually the police are commonly interested in people's personal opinions about what kind of mood someone was in.No, the police typically aren't interested in that at all. They're
Which is also part fact, like facial expression, and whatnot, but also part personal opinion.
interested in facts, not opinions.
And it's a good thing if children are taught be excellent observers, who know to exactly copy events to their mind,No human can do that. That's why eyewitness testimony is among the
least reliable types of evidence.
and to express meaningful personal opinions besides, to know how to separate them.Yes, knowing the difference between opinion and fact is, in fact,
quite important. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED LEARNING HOW TO DO SO???
That is emancipation of the individual.Agreed. When can you start working on both?
Ofcourse you are the one who is abnormal in regards to going crazy over the mention of the word spirit.Functional logic or spirit. Pick only one.
It is people's right to acknowledge their emotions.Of course it is. But what does "spirit", a woo-woo term if there ever
was one, have to do with that?
And then you cannot be so meanspirited to make a fuss about a word that is really essential basic terminology.To no one besides you.
As you do not object to the word material to faciliate objectivity, you cannot object to the word spiritual to facillitate subjectivity, because that is meanspirited.No, it's because you're trying to smuggle in nonsense by using the
word.
Here you can reconsider your "opinion" that Geert Vanden Bossche is a crackpot.You're the crackpot if you think I'm going to waste my time on a
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/who-and-the-pandemic-t-h-reat-h-y-is-the-c-19-emergency-over
video. Post a transcript if you really think it's important.
Op zondag 6 augustus 2023 om 19:11:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Again, it is just lying when you say people in general do not define choosing in terms of what is best, when the number 1 google definition defines choosing in terms of what is best. It means you are a liar. And the whole definition does not
words. But that ofcourse was just yet another dishonesty on your part.It's not my problem if you're unable to read English for
comprehension. And yes, the second definition does, in fact use that >> >> >> word. I even highlighted it for you. Do you even bother to read what >> >> >> you're responding to?
And besides that, according to you, dictionary definitions aren't conversational definitions without strict logic, according to you, dictionary definitions must be strictly followed, otherwise you are just arbitrarily fantasizing meaning of
I said no such thing. Try again,
Ofcourse the whole google definition does not function logically, but according to you, concepts don't need to function logically, because it is impossible for a concept to function.Concepts don't *do* anything. To say that they "function" is a
category error. Or that you're making up your own definitions of
either "concept", "function", or both.
So basically you already discarded logic altogether, as being impossible.Not at all, I have simply not yet encountered logic in anything you've >> >> >> written thus far.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices.
You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a
matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it
up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony.No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objects
make decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide?
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best.
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetism
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible futures ismade the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices.
You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't
accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a
matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it
up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony.No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objects
make decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
I used no smilies, And as for your suggestion regarding
wording, why would I want to lie?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't
make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide? Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained toyou as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best.No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insisting
that I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is your
mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you
cannot or will not process that? >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetism
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"Sounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the argument or the maths!)
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as
authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision,
not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible futures
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice
is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head
at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices.
You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't
accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a
matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it
up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony. >> No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objectsmake decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't
make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide? Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained toyou as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best.No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insisting
that I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is your
mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you
cannot or will not process that? >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetism
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"Sounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the argument or the maths!)
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as
authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision,
not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible futures
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice
is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head
at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices.
You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't
accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a
matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it
up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony. >> No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objectsmake decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 18:51:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appearedNext time try wording "You argued better and won."
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>We are the champions:
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory. >> >>
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
Perhaps without any scare quotes or smilies.
I used no smilies, And as for your suggestion regarding
wording, why would I want to lie?
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:26:05 PM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:detection scheme he is so fond of). In such a case the photon has made one of two possible futures the actual future. Maybe awkwardly worded, but not hard to understand. This is the paradigmatic example of free choice because there are no objective
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
He's weird, but I don't think he's that hard to understand.You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't
make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
1. For him a choice occurs whenever something happens instead of something else that might equally well have happened instead. The prime example of that, for him, is a photon going via path A rather than path B (particularly in the bomb vs dud
2. In the case of a human choosing, to the extent that the human is "forced by the logic of choosing the best option" to pick one alternative rather than another, the choice is less free, more deterministic, less subjective, more objective.futures is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
3. Real freedom consists in making choices which are not forced by any objective considerations, like weighing the facts to help decide which choice is the best option.
4. It leaves him a bit like the narrator in Camus" l'Etranger, with nothing but the "acte gratuite."
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide? Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained toyou as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best. No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insisting that I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is yourmental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that? >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetism
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"Sounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the argument or the maths!)
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision,
not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice
is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head
at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices. >> You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't >> accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a >> matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you. >> >You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.
INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it >> up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony. >> No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objectsmake decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
As already explained, I refer to the dictionary as having the wrong definition,
which wrong definition is neverthless popular.
So that was another lie on your part that I would refer to the authority of the dictionary. Endless lying.
Sounds cranky, is obviously not a logical argument.
Neither is lunacy a logical argument.
It is just a fact that science shows that there are physical events which in the moment can turn out one way or another, like the wellknown superposition collapse.
As proven by that they can do practical things with the possiblities that were not chosen.
You are obviously a liar. The thinking the brain does in relation to decisions, is obviously about evaluating options in terms of what is best.
Idiot, how things work out in the mind, is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of how things work in physical reality.
But things do work in the mind, concepts do function.
Your position is totally mental. And I really don't know what to debate anymore,
when the issue of how concepts function is off the table.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 22:26:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't
make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already
explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide? >> Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained toyou as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best.No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insisting
that I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is your
mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you
cannot or will not process that?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetismSounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"
argument or the maths!)
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as
authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision,
not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible futures
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice
is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head
at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices.
You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't
accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a
matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it
up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony. >> >> No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objectsmake decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 22:06:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT), the followingI had some good reasons. Sounds civil. People would not take it as
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 18:51:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:I used no smilies, And as for your suggestion regarding
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appearedNext time try wording "You argued better and won."
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>We are the champions:
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory. >> >> >>
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
Perhaps without any scare quotes or smilies.
wording, why would I want to lie?
a lie, but about like "how do you do?" without being interested how
other does or "you're welcome." without thinking that what they did
helped any. Who takes it too literally perhaps deserves it and
whoever accuses you of lying sounds like idiot. It would be
interesting experiment for variety however it ends. Might get
new data might get none.
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 22:06:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT), the followingI had some good reasons. Sounds civil. People would not take it as
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 18:51:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:I used no smilies, And as for your suggestion regarding
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appearedNext time try wording "You argued better and won."
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>We are the champions:
wrote:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory. >> >> >>
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
Perhaps without any scare quotes or smilies.
wording, why would I want to lie?
a lie, but about like "how do you do?" without being interested how
other does or "you're welcome." without thinking that what they did
helped any. Who takes it too literally perhaps deserves it and
whoever accuses you of lying sounds like idiot. It would be
interesting experiment for variety however it ends. Might get
new data might get none.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:26:05 PM UTC-4, Harry Krishna wrote:detection scheme he is so fond of). In such a case the photon has made one of two possible futures the actual future. Maybe awkwardly worded, but not hard to understand. This is the paradigmatic example of free choice because there are no objective
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
He's weird, but I don't think he's that hard to understand.You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't
make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
1. For him a choice occurs whenever something happens instead of something else that might equally well have happened instead. The prime example of that, for him, is a photon going via path A rather than path B (particularly in the bomb vs dud
2. In the case of a human choosing, to the extent that the human is "forced by the logic of choosing the best option" to pick one alternative rather than another, the choice is less free, more deterministic, less subjective, more objective.futures is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
3. Real freedom consists in making choices which are not forced by any objective considerations, like weighing the facts to help decide which choice is the best option.
4. It leaves him a bit like the narrator in Camus" l'Etranger, with nothing but the "acte gratuite."
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide? Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained toyou as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best. No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insisting that I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is yourmental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that? >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetism
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"Sounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the argument or the maths!)
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision,
not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice
is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head
at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices. >> You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't >> accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a >> matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you. >> >You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.
INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it >> up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony. >> No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objectsmake decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:36:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 22:06:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:Check the posts jillery has made to me over the past year or
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT), the followingI had some good reasons. Sounds civil. People would not take it as
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 18:51:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:I used no smilies, And as for your suggestion regarding
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appearedNext time try wording "You argued better and won."
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>> >> >> wrote:We are the champions:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory. >>> >> >>
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
Perhaps without any scare quotes or smilies.
wording, why would I want to lie?
a lie, but about like "how do you do?" without being interested how
other does or "you're welcome." without thinking that what they did
helped any. Who takes it too literally perhaps deserves it and
whoever accuses you of lying sounds like idiot. It would be
interesting experiment for variety however it ends. Might get
new data might get none.
two, then get back to me about "civil".
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As already explained, I refer to the dictionary as having the wrong definition,So the dictionary is wrong, and you, who make up your own definitions,
are right? How does that work?
which wrong definition is neverthless popular.How do you know that?
So that was another lie on your part that I would refer to the authority of the dictionary. Endless lying.Did you or did you not appeal to the dictionary to support your claim?
Do you even know?
Sounds cranky, is obviously not a logical argument.You are correct. It's not an argument, it's an observation that the
claim made is highly dubious on its face. Did you actually read the
paper? (That's even more doubtful.)
Neither is lunacy a logical argument.Who ever said it was? That's also an observation, as in "if you think
that inanimate objects make choices, you're a looney".
It is just a fact that science shows that there are physical events which in the moment can turn out one way or another, like the wellknown superposition collapse.Where, and by whom or what, is a decision made? Be specific.
As proven by that they can do practical things with the possiblities that were not chosen.Oh good grief, this goes back a couple of years to an experiment that
you clearly didn't understand at all, doesn't it? No thanks, you beat
that horse to death already.
You are obviously a liar. The thinking the brain does in relation to decisions, is obviously about evaluating options in terms of what is best.Why are you obsessed with the notion that I hold that position, Again,
I DON'T. I have told you my actual position dozens of times. What does
it take to get it through the block of cement on your shoulders?
Idiot, how things work out in the mind, is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of how things work in physical reality.Yes, you're Exhibit A demonstrating that. What goes on in your mind
has no discernable connection to physical reality.
But things do work in the mind, concepts do function.How does an abstract concept "function"? Take as much time as you
like. (Hint: you're still making a category error: Concepts don't
function, your brain is what's functioning in regard to the concept.)
Your position is totally mental. And I really don't know what to debate anymore,You haven't debated yet. That requires listening to the other person
and responding to what they say, not what you imagine they secretly
think.
when the issue of how concepts function is off the table.Feel free to describe how you think concepts "function". Again, you're
stuck in a category error.
futures is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 22:26:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't
make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already
explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide?Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained to
you as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best. >> No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insistingthat I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is your
mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you
cannot or will not process that?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetismSounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"
argument or the maths!)
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as
authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision,
not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice
is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head
at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices. >> >> You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't >> >> accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read >> >> what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a >> >> matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you. >> >> >You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.
INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it >> >> up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony.No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objects
make decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
How it works is, I investigate the logic that is used with the word "choose", in common discourse.
And the logic that is used is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.
And then I evaluate that logic, if it works. If there is a contradiction internally, or with other words. And if it accurately reflects what occurs. That is being rational.
So I don't refer to the dictionary, and the dictionary definition is wrong. But nevertheless the dictionary definition is popular.
You are obviously prejudicially doubting the reality of events that can turn out one way or another in the moment, while the science about it is fairly solid.
The concepts have logic attached to them,
and that is how concepts function, by processing the logic.
The concept of choosing has the logic of making one of alternative possible futures the present. I can go left, or right, I choose left, the alternative possible future of going left becomes to be the present.
The creationist logic of fact and opinion, are valid,
and anything else is wrong.
Not that you even have begun to make a rational argument about anything else being valid.
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 02:41:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:futures is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As already explained, I refer to the dictionary as having the wrong definition,So the dictionary is wrong, and you, who make up your own definitions,
are right? How does that work?
which wrong definition is neverthless popular.How do you know that?
So that was another lie on your part that I would refer to the authority of the dictionary. Endless lying.Did you or did you not appeal to the dictionary to support your claim?
Do you even know?
Sounds cranky, is obviously not a logical argument.You are correct. It's not an argument, it's an observation that the
claim made is highly dubious on its face. Did you actually read the
paper? (That's even more doubtful.)
Neither is lunacy a logical argument.Who ever said it was? That's also an observation, as in "if you think
that inanimate objects make choices, you're a looney".
It is just a fact that science shows that there are physical events which in the moment can turn out one way or another, like the wellknown superposition collapse.Where, and by whom or what, is a decision made? Be specific.
As proven by that they can do practical things with the possiblities that were not chosen.Oh good grief, this goes back a couple of years to an experiment that
you clearly didn't understand at all, doesn't it? No thanks, you beat
that horse to death already.
You are obviously a liar. The thinking the brain does in relation to decisions, is obviously about evaluating options in terms of what is best.Why are you obsessed with the notion that I hold that position, Again,
I DON'T. I have told you my actual position dozens of times. What does
it take to get it through the block of cement on your shoulders?
Idiot, how things work out in the mind, is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of how things work in physical reality.Yes, you're Exhibit A demonstrating that. What goes on in your mind
has no discernable connection to physical reality.
But things do work in the mind, concepts do function.How does an abstract concept "function"? Take as much time as you
like. (Hint: you're still making a category error: Concepts don't
function, your brain is what's functioning in regard to the concept.)
Your position is totally mental. And I really don't know what to debate anymore,You haven't debated yet. That requires listening to the other person
and responding to what they say, not what you imagine they secretly
think.
when the issue of how concepts function is off the table.Feel free to describe how you think concepts "function". Again, you're
stuck in a category error.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 22:26:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't
make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already
explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide?Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained to
you as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best. >> >> No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insistingthat I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is your
mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you
cannot or will not process that?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetismSounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"
argument or the maths!)
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as
authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision,
not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice
is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head
at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices. >> >> >> You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO
REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't >> >> >> accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read >> >> >> what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a >> >> >> matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you. >> >> >> >You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.
INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it >> >> >> up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony.No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objects
make decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up
positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 07:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:futures is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
How it works is, I investigate the logic that is used with the word "choose", in common discourse.You can stop right there. Nothing that you say, and certainly no
definition that you invent, has any connection to "common discourse".
And the logic that is used is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.I have already pointed out that this is a poor definition for
"choosing", and explained that no, making a decision does not, in
fact, do any such thing unless and until you actually act on it. You
have, of course, ignored this, and simply repeated your claim.
And then I evaluate that logic, if it works. If there is a contradiction internally, or with other words. And if it accurately reflects what occurs. That is being rational.Then I suggest you do that, instead of ignoring fairly obvious flaws
in your attempts at reasoning, such as the one I just pointed out to
you again.
So I don't refer to the dictionary, and the dictionary definition is wrong. But nevertheless the dictionary definition is popular.So the dictionary definition is wrong, and your own personal
definition is right. Again, how does that work?
You are obviously prejudicially doubting the reality of events that can turn out one way or another in the moment, while the science about it is fairly solid.No, I don't doubt that at all. What I reject is your looney notion
that these events involve inanimate objects making choices.
The concepts have logic attached to them,Your ideas about them don't.
and that is how concepts function, by processing the logic.No, people do that, not concepts.
The concept of choosing has the logic of making one of alternative possible futures the present. I can go left, or right, I choose left, the alternative possible future of going left becomes to be the present.NOT UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU ACT ON IT. Again, your definition is a bad
one for that reason.
The creationist logic of fact and opinion, are valid,For definitions of "Creationist" that mean your own weird ideas that
no one else, including other Creationists, shares, and for "valid",
you mean incoherent to anyone who isn't you.
and anything else is wrong.If you think so, then demonstrate it, don't just assert it.
Not that you even have begun to make a rational argument about anything else being valid.That would be an exercise in futility, as you have no ability to
recognize rationality.
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 02:41:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As already explained, I refer to the dictionary as having the wrong definition,So the dictionary is wrong, and you, who make up your own definitions,
are right? How does that work?
which wrong definition is neverthless popular.How do you know that?
So that was another lie on your part that I would refer to the authority of the dictionary. Endless lying.Did you or did you not appeal to the dictionary to support your claim?
Do you even know?
Sounds cranky, is obviously not a logical argument.You are correct. It's not an argument, it's an observation that the
claim made is highly dubious on its face. Did you actually read the
paper? (That's even more doubtful.)
Neither is lunacy a logical argument.Who ever said it was? That's also an observation, as in "if you think
that inanimate objects make choices, you're a looney".
It is just a fact that science shows that there are physical events which in the moment can turn out one way or another, like the wellknown superposition collapse.Where, and by whom or what, is a decision made? Be specific.
As proven by that they can do practical things with the possiblities that were not chosen.Oh good grief, this goes back a couple of years to an experiment that
you clearly didn't understand at all, doesn't it? No thanks, you beat
that horse to death already.
You are obviously a liar. The thinking the brain does in relation to decisions, is obviously about evaluating options in terms of what is best.Why are you obsessed with the notion that I hold that position, Again,
I DON'T. I have told you my actual position dozens of times. What does
it take to get it through the block of cement on your shoulders?
Idiot, how things work out in the mind, is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of how things work in physical reality.Yes, you're Exhibit A demonstrating that. What goes on in your mind
has no discernable connection to physical reality.
But things do work in the mind, concepts do function.How does an abstract concept "function"? Take as much time as you
like. (Hint: you're still making a category error: Concepts don't
function, your brain is what's functioning in regard to the concept.)
Your position is totally mental. And I really don't know what to debate anymore,You haven't debated yet. That requires listening to the other person
and responding to what they say, not what you imagine they secretly
think.
when the issue of how concepts function is off the table.Feel free to describe how you think concepts "function". Again, you're
stuck in a category error.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 22:26:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't >> >> make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already
explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide?Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained to >> >> you as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best.No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insisting >> >> that I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is your
mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you >> >> cannot or will not process that?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetismSounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the >> >> argument or the maths!)
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as
authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision, >> >> not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice >> >> is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head >> >> at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices.
You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO >> >> >> REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't
accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a
matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it
up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony.No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objects >> >> >> make decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up >> >> >> positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
Wrong, a decision is an act.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/decision.html
The act of making one of alternative possible futures the present.
To decide in the mind to go left instead of right, is an act.
To then go left is the direct consequence of that act.
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 17:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:futures is made the present, one of the candidates becomes to be the president. That is how choosing functions.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 07:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
How it works is, I investigate the logic that is used with the word "choose", in common discourse.You can stop right there. Nothing that you say, and certainly no
definition that you invent, has any connection to "common discourse".
And the logic that is used is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.I have already pointed out that this is a poor definition for
"choosing", and explained that no, making a decision does not, in
fact, do any such thing unless and until you actually act on it. You
have, of course, ignored this, and simply repeated your claim.
And then I evaluate that logic, if it works. If there is a contradiction internally, or with other words. And if it accurately reflects what occurs. That is being rational.Then I suggest you do that, instead of ignoring fairly obvious flaws
in your attempts at reasoning, such as the one I just pointed out to
you again.
So I don't refer to the dictionary, and the dictionary definition is wrong. But nevertheless the dictionary definition is popular.So the dictionary definition is wrong, and your own personal
definition is right. Again, how does that work?
You are obviously prejudicially doubting the reality of events that can turn out one way or another in the moment, while the science about it is fairly solid.No, I don't doubt that at all. What I reject is your looney notion
that these events involve inanimate objects making choices.
The concepts have logic attached to them,Your ideas about them don't.
and that is how concepts function, by processing the logic.No, people do that, not concepts.
The concept of choosing has the logic of making one of alternative possible futures the present. I can go left, or right, I choose left, the alternative possible future of going left becomes to be the present.NOT UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU ACT ON IT. Again, your definition is a bad
one for that reason.
The creationist logic of fact and opinion, are valid,For definitions of "Creationist" that mean your own weird ideas that
no one else, including other Creationists, shares, and for "valid",
you mean incoherent to anyone who isn't you.
and anything else is wrong.If you think so, then demonstrate it, don't just assert it.
Not that you even have begun to make a rational argument about anything else being valid.That would be an exercise in futility, as you have no ability to
recognize rationality.
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 02:41:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
As already explained, I refer to the dictionary as having the wrong definition,So the dictionary is wrong, and you, who make up your own definitions,
are right? How does that work?
which wrong definition is neverthless popular.How do you know that?
So that was another lie on your part that I would refer to the authority of the dictionary. Endless lying.Did you or did you not appeal to the dictionary to support your claim?
Do you even know?
Sounds cranky, is obviously not a logical argument.You are correct. It's not an argument, it's an observation that the
claim made is highly dubious on its face. Did you actually read the
paper? (That's even more doubtful.)
Neither is lunacy a logical argument.Who ever said it was? That's also an observation, as in "if you think
that inanimate objects make choices, you're a looney".
It is just a fact that science shows that there are physical events which in the moment can turn out one way or another, like the wellknown superposition collapse.Where, and by whom or what, is a decision made? Be specific.
As proven by that they can do practical things with the possiblities that were not chosen.Oh good grief, this goes back a couple of years to an experiment that
you clearly didn't understand at all, doesn't it? No thanks, you beat
that horse to death already.
You are obviously a liar. The thinking the brain does in relation to decisions, is obviously about evaluating options in terms of what is best.Why are you obsessed with the notion that I hold that position, Again,
I DON'T. I have told you my actual position dozens of times. What does
it take to get it through the block of cement on your shoulders?
Idiot, how things work out in the mind, is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of how things work in physical reality.Yes, you're Exhibit A demonstrating that. What goes on in your mind
has no discernable connection to physical reality.
But things do work in the mind, concepts do function.How does an abstract concept "function"? Take as much time as you
like. (Hint: you're still making a category error: Concepts don't
function, your brain is what's functioning in regard to the concept.)
Your position is totally mental. And I really don't know what to debate anymore,You haven't debated yet. That requires listening to the other person
and responding to what they say, not what you imagine they secretly
think.
when the issue of how concepts function is off the table.Feel free to describe how you think concepts "function". Again, you're
stuck in a category error.
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 22:26:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
You are just repeating that it is lunacy that decisions are made in inanimate systems, but you provide no logical reason why this is so.If you seriously need it explained to you why inanimate objects can't >> >> >> make decisions, then you truly are a looney. In any case, I already
explained it.
refer to that decisions must have a brain, but if decision is just about making things turn out one way or another in the moment, then obviously science says, no brain is needed for that.Science says no such thing.
So what is it that a brain does, or has, that makes it capable to decide?Thinking. Processing information. Do you really need THIS explained to >> >> >> you as well? You're a looney.
And obviously the answer is, that the brain can figure out what is best.No, that isn't "obvious", it's your own weird obsession with insisting >> >> >> that I define choosing in that way. I don't. What the hell is your
mental malfunction that you cannot or will not process that?
Because you are just a fucking liar. You just fall into the trap of conflating the moral advice to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.Again, NO I DO NOT. What the hell is your mental malfunction that you >> >> >> cannot or will not process that?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234883232_Review_of_incursive_hyperincursive_and_anticipatory_systems-foundation_of_anticipation_in_electromagnetismSounds pretty cranky. (And don't even pretend that you understand the >> >> >> argument or the maths!)
"The main purpose of this paper is to show that anticipation is not only a property of biosystems but is also a fundamental property of physical systems
Anticipation is not only related to predictions but to decisions: hyperincursive systems create multiple choices and a decision process selects one choice"
You have said losts and lots of untrue things. You lied that people do not define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, eventhough it is the number 1 definition on google.Why are you appealing to the dictionary when you reject it as
authoritative? Self-contradictory much?
But basically you will just lie about everything, anything.I have said nothing untrue.
But the most crazy thing you say is that concepts do not function, that they have no way in which they work.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. They simply *are*.
The concept of decision, as used in common discourse, the function of it is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.As I have noted before, no. That happens when you ACT on the decision, >> >> >> not when you MAKE the decision. Your definition is not a good one.
There are several presedential candidates, any of them can become the president, so multiple alternative possible futures available of which individual becomes president. Then it is decided with elections, and one of the alternative possible
This occurs on January 20th of the following year, not when the choice >> >> >> is made. Congratulations: you just refuted your own position.
But ofcourse socialists cheat at elections, so maybe there is no decision, maybe it is all rigged in the machines.Maybe you're just saying whatever random bullshit pops into your head >> >> >> at the moment.
There is the concept that functions in one way, and then there is the physical reality to which it refers, which maybe it doesn't accurately reflect.What on Earth are you trying to say?
The concept still functions in the mind, even if things don't function that way in reality.Again, um, what?
Op maandag 7 augustus 2023 om 21:16:06 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
But why do you say that it is ridiculous that things are chosen in the inanimate universe? Obviously because the inanimate universe has no brain with which to figure out what is best.No, because inanimate objects lack a brain with which to make choices.
You really are a looney.
You lie that people don't conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, and then ofcourse you lie about your own position on this issue as well. You clearly define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.Again, NO, I DO NOT DEFINE CHOOSING THAT WAY, AND I HAVE STATED SO >> >> >> >> REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. What is your mental malfunction that you can't
accept something that simple?
And again, you have thrown out the idea of concepts that have functional logic, a way in which they work,Concepts don't "do" anything.
and then you complain that the creationist conceptual scheme has no functional logic. Which is duplicity.No, I complain that your "Creationist Conceptual Scheme" is
incomprehensible to anyone who isn't you. Do you even bother to read
what you're responding to? Your responses would suggest that the
answer to that is "no".
Happiness is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. And the police are interested in people's personal opinion about a suspect their emotional state. So that was another lie on your part.They are interested in descriptions of HOW A PERSON ACTED, which is a
matter of fact. You are as confused as it is possible to be, as
always.
You are some kind of an authoritarian.You could not possibly be further from the truth.
You don't do logic, and then by your own authority you just declare things are so.I have done no such thing at any point.
You declare the police aren't interested in personal opinions,No, they really aren't.
you declare impulse is the same as spontaneous.It is, as I noted, a distinction without a difference, as used by you.
You declare decisions aren't made in the inanimate universe.INAMIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. You're a looney.
A scientist, named Dubois, asserts that decisions are a part of physics. With some theory on hyperincursive whatever.So you don't actually know what "Dubois" was saying. Then why bring it
up?
But according to you, that is wrong, because you declare it is loony.No, I declare that YOU are a looney if you think inanimate objects >> >> >> >> make decisions.
But he has functional logic, and you only have your declaration, and the idea that a logically functional concept is impossible.Abstract concepts don't *do* anything. Again.
You are just generating increasing amounts of total bullshit, as if that is some kind of argument.It certainly isn't one on your part. That would require that you
actually address anything I say, for a start, instead of making up >> >> >> >> positions for me and attacking them instead.
I have said nothing untrue. You're a looney.Harry Krishna is a total liar, in every way imaginable. There is absolutely nothing what you said that is true.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Wrong, a decision is an act.No, MAKING a decision is an act. You then have to IMPLEMENT that
decision, which is a separate act. Deciding to drink water won't stop
you from being thirsty until you actually get up and go get a glass of
water and drink it. What part of this is unclear to you? >https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/decision.html
The act of making one of alternative possible futures the present.Making a decision does NOT do that until and unless you actually ACT
ON IT. What part of that is unclear to you?
To decide in the mind to go left instead of right, is an act.Yes, making a decision is an act. But it does not "make one of
alternative possible futures the present" unless and until you put
that decision into action. What part of that is unclear to you?
To then go left is the direct consequence of that act.No it's a direct consequence of ACTING ON THAT DECISION. Making a
decision and actually implementing it are NOT THE SAME THING. What
part of that is unclear to you? (Let me guess: the part with words in English...)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 17:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
Idiot, to say the decision may, or may not be implemented, as you do say,
then you have 2 alternative possible futures again, and a second decision again.
But you already discounted that a second decision could take place, because you defined it so that decisions cannot make one of alternative possible futures the present.
So it just more of your irrational stupidity, which stupidity is what you say that the english language requires.
Decisions in the mind already make one of alternative possible futures the present, in the mind itself.
To decide in the mind to go left, then obviously there were the alternative possible futures available in the mind to make the determination to go left, and the alternative possible future to make the determination to go right. And then the alternativepossible future of making the determination to go left, was made the present.
And then ofcourse in the complexity of decision making processes this determination, governs the body going left. So then to make one of alternative possible futures of the body going left, and the body going right, the present.
But let's get back on topic. Your dumb worthless throwaway personal opinions on issues, caused by you having no awareness of the entire subjective part of reality, which is the part of it that chooses.
No awareness of yourself as being subjective, as being a decision maker,decisions were made either.
no awareness of anyone else being subjective as being a decision maker, and no awareness of any decisions made in the entire inanimate universe, by which man and woman were created, and the earth, and obviously no awareness for the spirit in which
So that all your personal opinions are total trash. Why you called Geert Vanden Bossche a crackpot, and you called Rand Paul insane or something.
There were the possiblities available of the earth coming to be, and the earth not coming to be,
and it was decided.
Same for man and woman, it is all decided.
And as much as it is utterly disgusting that you have no consideration, no feeling, for the spirit in which these decisions were made, because you do not acknowledge that any decisions were made
, and because if a decision is made, you do not acknowledge that you can identifiy the agency of that decision with a chosen opinion,
from your own emotion and personal character, as much as this is disgusting, it is still more disgusting that you do not really acknowledge your own emotions, nor of your family, nor of anyone else.
You only refer to objective brains as making decisions,
and you do not refer to anything subjective whatsoever as doing to the job of making a decision.
Meaning that you do not really acknowledge any emotion, any personal character, whatsoever.
And then from this highly marginalized subjectivity, you make your total crap personal opinions on issues, which are completely bereft of any worthwhile emotion, and personal character.
And ofcourse you do that as part of a whole culture of marginalization of all what is subjective, for it not being objective.
Resulting in bad judgment, weird ideology, and mental illness, and ofcourse the bad judgment resulting in the covid catastrophy.
I predict you must be some kind of socialist. Are you a socialist? Which is weird ideology.
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 20:21:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Wrong, a decision is an act.No, MAKING a decision is an act. You then have to IMPLEMENT that
decision, which is a separate act. Deciding to drink water won't stop
you from being thirsty until you actually get up and go get a glass of
water and drink it. What part of this is unclear to you?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/decision.htmlMaking a decision does NOT do that until and unless you actually ACT
The act of making one of alternative possible futures the present.
ON IT. What part of that is unclear to you?
To decide in the mind to go left instead of right, is an act.Yes, making a decision is an act. But it does not "make one of
alternative possible futures the present" unless and until you put
that decision into action. What part of that is unclear to you?
To then go left is the direct consequence of that act.No it's a direct consequence of ACTING ON THAT DECISION. Making a
decision and actually implementing it are NOT THE SAME THING. What
part of that is unclear to you? (Let me guess: the part with words in
English...)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 17:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:alternative possible future of making the determination to go left, was made the present.
Idiot, to say the decision may, or may not be implemented, as you do say,As I correctly observe. A decision has no effect on anything unless
and until you actually act on it.
then you have 2 alternative possible futures again, and a second decision again.That's an insoluble problem for your model, not for reality.
But you already discounted that a second decision could take place, because you defined it so that decisions cannot make one of alternative possible futures the present.I said no such thing, you illiterate imbecile. What I said is that
they don't do so UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU IMPLEMENT THEM. Simply MAKING
the decision doesn't do that. You have to ACT on it to "make one of alternative possible futures the present". Do you really not
understand that THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?
So it just more of your irrational stupidity, which stupidity is what you say that the english language requires.Your complete and utter inability to read simple sentences in English
for comprehension is your problem, not mine.
Decisions in the mind already make one of alternative possible futures the present, in the mind itself.DECIDING TO DO SOMETHING AND ACTUALLY DOING IT ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
What part of that is unclear to you? If you don't actually DO
something about it, you're not "deciding", you're daydreaming.
To decide in the mind to go left, then obviously there were the alternative possible futures available in the mind to make the determination to go left, and the alternative possible future to make the determination to go right. And then the
Again, unless and until you actually go left, that's meaningless.decisions were made either.
And then ofcourse in the complexity of decision making processes this determination, governs the body going left. So then to make one of alternative possible futures of the body going left, and the body going right, the present.Yes, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GO LEFT. Not when you DECIDE to do it.
But let's get back on topic. Your dumb worthless throwaway personal opinions on issues, caused by you having no awareness of the entire subjective part of reality, which is the part of it that chooses.That's getting back to word salad.
No awareness of yourself as being subjective, as being a decision maker,
no awareness of anyone else being subjective as being a decision maker, and no awareness of any decisions made in the entire inanimate universe, by which man and woman were created, and the earth, and obviously no awareness for the spirit in which
Sounds like a load of woo-woo, and INANIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE
DECISIONS. You're a looney.
So that all your personal opinions are total trash. Why you called Geert Vanden Bossche a crackpot, and you called Rand Paul insane or something.They're both nutters who hold positions that aren't supported by
evidence, or are contradicted by it.
There were the possiblities available of the earth coming to be, and the earth not coming to be,Cosmologists and astrophysicists would disagree with that rather
strongly. Why do you insist on sounding off on subjects you don't
understand in the least?
and it was decided.
Decided by whom or what? I have asked that question repeatedly. Any
chance you'll answer it any time?
Same for man and woman, it is all decided.What is "all decided", and decided by whom or what?
And as much as it is utterly disgusting that you have no consideration, no feeling, for the spirit in which these decisions were made, because you do not acknowledge that any decisions were madeWhat decisions, and whom or what made those decisions?
, and because if a decision is made, you do not acknowledge that you can identifiy the agency of that decision with a chosen opinion,I don't acknowledge it for two reasons: 1) It's borderline gibberish,
and 2) People normally don't "choose" their opinions.
from your own emotion and personal character, as much as this is disgusting, it is still more disgusting that you do not really acknowledge your own emotions, nor of your family, nor of anyone else.Sure I do.
You only refer to objective brains as making decisions,Sentient beings make decisions. Inanimate objects don't have that
ability.
and you do not refer to anything subjective whatsoever as doing to the job of making a decision.Because it's not clear what that's even supposed to mean.
Meaning that you do not really acknowledge any emotion, any personal character, whatsoever.Certainly I do. What's your point?
And then from this highly marginalized subjectivity, you make your total crap personal opinions on issues, which are completely bereft of any worthwhile emotion, and personal character.How so?
And ofcourse you do that as part of a whole culture of marginalization of all what is subjective, for it not being objective.What does that even mean?
Resulting in bad judgment, weird ideology, and mental illness, and ofcourse the bad judgment resulting in the covid catastrophy.That doesn't follow.
I predict you must be some kind of socialist. Are you a socialist? Which is weird ideology.I've already mentioned quite a few times that I am, so that's hardly a "prediction". (And I have a strong suspicion that you have your own
personal definition of "socialism" that has as little connection to
the English language as your other personal definitions for words.)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 20:21:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Wrong, a decision is an act.No, MAKING a decision is an act. You then have to IMPLEMENT that
decision, which is a separate act. Deciding to drink water won't stop
you from being thirsty until you actually get up and go get a glass of
water and drink it. What part of this is unclear to you?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/decision.htmlMaking a decision does NOT do that until and unless you actually ACT
The act of making one of alternative possible futures the present.
ON IT. What part of that is unclear to you?
To decide in the mind to go left instead of right, is an act.Yes, making a decision is an act. But it does not "make one of
alternative possible futures the present" unless and until you put
that decision into action. What part of that is unclear to you?
To then go left is the direct consequence of that act.No it's a direct consequence of ACTING ON THAT DECISION. Making a
decision and actually implementing it are NOT THE SAME THING. What
part of that is unclear to you? (Let me guess: the part with words in
English...)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 17:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_ronteltap@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, to say the decision may, or may not be implemented, as you do say,
As I correctly observe. A decision has no effect on anything unless
and until you actually act on it.
then you have 2 alternative possible futures again, and a second decision again.
That's an insoluble problem for your model, not for reality.
But you already discounted that a second decision could take place, because you defined it so that decisions cannot make one of alternative possible futures the present.
I said no such thing, you illiterate imbecile. What I said is that
they don't do so UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU IMPLEMENT THEM. Simply MAKING
the decision doesn't do that. You have to ACT on it to "make one of alternative possible futures the present". Do you really not
understand that THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?
I guess I forgot that you already said that you are a socialist.
So spreading misery throughout society using your weird ideology.
And always generating this crazy atmosphere in society of irrationally doing your best for something, in an exaggerated way.
So that all else suffers from achieving some insane goal. The socialist mindset.
Which is all about the feelings of doing your best, and not about any kind of meaningful judgment based on common sense.
Obviously it is yet another logic error when you say that decisions do not make one of alternative possible futures the present, unless you implement them.
Because by that logic you cannot make a decision to implement the determination,
while you are in contradiction to that, also saying that a decision is required to implement the determination.
Deciding to pull the trigger on the gun, and pulling the trigger on the gun, the first causes the second.
It is a subjective opinion that decisions in the mind are meaningless.
That the alternative possible futures available in the mind itself, and the decisions on them are meaningless. That is your opinion that they are meaningless. Which makes no sense whatsoever, because then how do you go left instead of right, if thedecision in the mind is meaningless?
So that is also totally mental, that decisions in the mind are meaningless,
besides your other totally mental belief that concepts do not function.
Is that because you have a lot of unwanted trash thoughts in your mind, that you say decisions in the mind are meaningless?
All cosmologists and astrophysicists regard the origin of the earth to be a contingency, which could have turned out another way than it did.
The alternative is to say that the earth is some kind of neccessity of the laws of nature.
But the laws of nature only provide for the possiblity of the earth coming to be, and not for the neccessity of it.
Which is basically about the calculations of the likelyhood of a planet with intelligent life coming to be, which has been debated much.
It's a subjective issue what the identity of any decision maker is,
which goes for the origins of the earth,
as well as for decisions by human beings.
The identity of you as being a decision maker, I feel it is this kind of insane feelings of doing your best.
Elitist. Authoritarian. You're always up there, doing your best, ruining everyone's life in the process.
Your declaration that Vanden Bossche, and Rand Paul, hold positions contrary to the evidence, on some factual issues, is obviously just a lie based on your socialist politics.
They threaten your emotional basis of feelings of doing your best, in the covid crisis, and in your socialist politics, and that is why you say that they hold positions contrary to the evidence.
You get off on those feelings, you really need it, and then when someone throws in common sense, then you lose that feeling. It has to be extreme doing your best, for you to feel anything significant.
A third totally mental idea of yours is that people do not normally choose their opinions.
Which makes your socialism some kind of affliction,
and not a chosen opinion for which you are responsible.
But socialists always argue that way about people, that someone's opinion is just determined by their race, or class, or environment or determined by whatever else, and never chosen.
You don't identifiy emotions, or personal character, with a chosen opinion,
and you don't acknowledge them as attributes of a decision maker.
You only acknowledge objective brains as doing the deciding. It's not really acknowledging people's emotions and personal character.
Pseudoscience about what someone's personal character is,
does not really acknowledge people's personal character, because the real personal character is inherently subjective,
and can only be identified with a chosen opinion.
You simply omit the entire subjective part of reality.
Op woensdag 9 augustus 2023 om 19:41:08 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:alternative possible future of making the determination to go left, was made the present.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, to say the decision may, or may not be implemented, as you do say, >> As I correctly observe. A decision has no effect on anything unlessand until you actually act on it.
then you have 2 alternative possible futures again, and a second decision again.That's an insoluble problem for your model, not for reality.
But you already discounted that a second decision could take place, because you defined it so that decisions cannot make one of alternative possible futures the present.I said no such thing, you illiterate imbecile. What I said is that
they don't do so UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU IMPLEMENT THEM. Simply MAKING
the decision doesn't do that. You have to ACT on it to "make one of
alternative possible futures the present". Do you really not
understand that THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?
So it just more of your irrational stupidity, which stupidity is what you say that the english language requires.Your complete and utter inability to read simple sentences in English
for comprehension is your problem, not mine.
Decisions in the mind already make one of alternative possible futures the present, in the mind itself.DECIDING TO DO SOMETHING AND ACTUALLY DOING IT ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
What part of that is unclear to you? If you don't actually DO
something about it, you're not "deciding", you're daydreaming.
To decide in the mind to go left, then obviously there were the alternative possible futures available in the mind to make the determination to go left, and the alternative possible future to make the determination to go right. And then the
decisions were made either.Again, unless and until you actually go left, that's meaningless.
And then ofcourse in the complexity of decision making processes this determination, governs the body going left. So then to make one of alternative possible futures of the body going left, and the body going right, the present.Yes, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GO LEFT. Not when you DECIDE to do it.
But let's get back on topic. Your dumb worthless throwaway personal opinions on issues, caused by you having no awareness of the entire subjective part of reality, which is the part of it that chooses.That's getting back to word salad.
No awareness of yourself as being subjective, as being a decision maker,
no awareness of anyone else being subjective as being a decision maker, and no awareness of any decisions made in the entire inanimate universe, by which man and woman were created, and the earth, and obviously no awareness for the spirit in which
Sounds like a load of woo-woo, and INANIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE
DECISIONS. You're a looney.
So that all your personal opinions are total trash. Why you called Geert Vanden Bossche a crackpot, and you called Rand Paul insane or something.They're both nutters who hold positions that aren't supported by
evidence, or are contradicted by it.
There were the possiblities available of the earth coming to be, and the earth not coming to be,Cosmologists and astrophysicists would disagree with that rather
strongly. Why do you insist on sounding off on subjects you don't
understand in the least?
and it was decided.
Decided by whom or what? I have asked that question repeatedly. Any
chance you'll answer it any time?
Same for man and woman, it is all decided.What is "all decided", and decided by whom or what?
And as much as it is utterly disgusting that you have no consideration, no feeling, for the spirit in which these decisions were made, because you do not acknowledge that any decisions were madeWhat decisions, and whom or what made those decisions?
, and because if a decision is made, you do not acknowledge that you can identifiy the agency of that decision with a chosen opinion,I don't acknowledge it for two reasons: 1) It's borderline gibberish,
and 2) People normally don't "choose" their opinions.
from your own emotion and personal character, as much as this is disgusting, it is still more disgusting that you do not really acknowledge your own emotions, nor of your family, nor of anyone else.Sure I do.
You only refer to objective brains as making decisions,Sentient beings make decisions. Inanimate objects don't have that
ability.
and you do not refer to anything subjective whatsoever as doing to the job of making a decision.Because it's not clear what that's even supposed to mean.
Meaning that you do not really acknowledge any emotion, any personal character, whatsoever.Certainly I do. What's your point?
And then from this highly marginalized subjectivity, you make your total crap personal opinions on issues, which are completely bereft of any worthwhile emotion, and personal character.How so?
And ofcourse you do that as part of a whole culture of marginalization of all what is subjective, for it not being objective.What does that even mean?
Resulting in bad judgment, weird ideology, and mental illness, and ofcourse the bad judgment resulting in the covid catastrophy.That doesn't follow.
I predict you must be some kind of socialist. Are you a socialist? Which is weird ideology.I've already mentioned quite a few times that I am, so that's hardly a
"prediction". (And I have a strong suspicion that you have your own
personal definition of "socialism" that has as little connection to
the English language as your other personal definitions for words.)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 20:21:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Wrong, a decision is an act.No, MAKING a decision is an act. You then have to IMPLEMENT that
decision, which is a separate act. Deciding to drink water won't stop
you from being thirsty until you actually get up and go get a glass of
water and drink it. What part of this is unclear to you?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/decision.htmlMaking a decision does NOT do that until and unless you actually ACT
The act of making one of alternative possible futures the present.
ON IT. What part of that is unclear to you?
To decide in the mind to go left instead of right, is an act.Yes, making a decision is an act. But it does not "make one of
alternative possible futures the present" unless and until you put
that decision into action. What part of that is unclear to you?
To then go left is the direct consequence of that act.No it's a direct consequence of ACTING ON THAT DECISION. Making a
decision and actually implementing it are NOT THE SAME THING. What
part of that is unclear to you? (Let me guess: the part with words in
English...)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 17:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:decision in the mind is meaningless?
I guess I forgot that you already said that you are a socialist.You have forgotten a great many things, like actually answering any questions that anyone asks you.
So spreading misery throughout society using your weird ideology.Anyone who believes as many weird things as you do is in no position
to judge anyone else's positions on anything.
And always generating this crazy atmosphere in society of irrationally doing your best for something, in an exaggerated way.There are three problems with that statement: 1) It is not irrational
to do one's best. 2) It is not crazy to want to do one's best. 3) That
has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SOCIALISM. You're a looney.
So that all else suffers from achieving some insane goal. The socialist mindset.Socialism is about the state controlling the means of production in
various sectors of the economy. Your statement above has nothing
whatsoever to do with it.
Which is all about the feelings of doing your best, and not about any kind of meaningful judgment based on common sense.Isn't it common sense to WANT to do one's best? You really are weird. >Obviously it is yet another logic error when you say that decisions do not make one of alternative possible futures the present, unless you implement them.
No, it's a fact, whether you like that or not, or whether or not it conflicts with your model. Here's a hint: if facts contradict your
model, the model is wrong.
Because by that logic you cannot make a decision to implement the determination,That doesn't follow.
while you are in contradiction to that, also saying that a decision is required to implement the determination.If you don't implement it, you're not making a decision, you're
daydreaming.
Deciding to pull the trigger on the gun, and pulling the trigger on the gun, the first causes the second.Yes, BUT, isn't it possible - not just possible, but common - for
people to not follow through on their decisions, or get sidetracked
from them, or be unable for whatever reason to carry them out? You're
so focused on your "model" that you insist everything has to follow
that you ignore the real world.
It is a subjective opinion that decisions in the mind are meaningless.Are you completely incapable of reading for comprehension? I said that
they are meaningless UNLESS AND UNTIL you put them into action.
Otherwise, you're not deciding, you're daydreaming.
That the alternative possible futures available in the mind itself, and the decisions on them are meaningless. That is your opinion that they are meaningless. Which makes no sense whatsoever, because then how do you go left instead of right, if the
Again, that's NOT what I said. Why can't you address what I actually
wrote, instead of making something up, and replying to that?
So that is also totally mental, that decisions in the mind are meaningless, Again, that's NOT what I said. Why can't you address what I actuallywrote, instead of making something up, and replying to that?
besides your other totally mental belief that concepts do not function.Again, abstract concepts don't DO anything. You seem to be confused on
a fundamental level as to what "abstract" and "concept" mean if you
think otherwise.
Is that because you have a lot of unwanted trash thoughts in your mind, that you say decisions in the mind are meaningless?Again, that's NOT what I said. Why can't you address what I actually
wrote, instead of making something up, and replying to that?
All cosmologists and astrophysicists regard the origin of the earth to be a contingency, which could have turned out another way than it did.You are completely and utterly wrong.
The alternative is to say that the earth is some kind of neccessity of the laws of nature.The Sun, the Earth and the rest of our solar system came about because
of the laws of physics acting on the enormous cloud of dust and gas
left over from a supernova. This is well-understood physics.
But the laws of nature only provide for the possiblity of the earth coming to be, and not for the neccessity of it.You are incorrect.
Which is basically about the calculations of the likelyhood of a planet with intelligent life coming to be, which has been debated much.No it isn't. That's a completely different issue than how the Earth
was formed.
It's a subjective issue what the identity of any decision maker is, Nonsense.There were no decisions involved, just physics.
which goes for the origins of the earth,
as well as for decisions by human beings.Self-evidently wrong. Where are you getting this from? It is an
objective fact that I have made the decision to reply to your latest
rant, not a subjective issue.
The identity of you as being a decision maker, I feel it is this kind of insane feelings of doing your best.The identity of me as being a decision maker is as a sentient human. Feelings can MOTIVATE decisions that people make, they do not,
themselves, MAKE decisions. You're a looney.
Elitist. Authoritarian. You're always up there, doing your best, ruining everyone's life in the process.Yeah, the world is a terrible place because everyone is doing their
best. Do you have any idea how batshit crazy you sound to anyone
besides you?
Your declaration that Vanden Bossche, and Rand Paul, hold positions contrary to the evidence, on some factual issues, is obviously just a lie based on your socialist politics.No, it's because they do, in fact, hold various positions unsupported
by or contrary to evidence. That would be just as true if I were a
moderate or a right-winger.
They threaten your emotional basis of feelings of doing your best, in the covid crisis, and in your socialist politics, and that is why you say that they hold positions contrary to the evidence.No, I say that because they do that.
You get off on those feelings, you really need it, and then when someone throws in common sense, then you lose that feeling. It has to be extreme doing your best, for you to feel anything significant.Good grief, you really have no idea how anyone else on the planet
thinks, do you?
A third totally mental idea of yours is that people do not normally choose their opinions.It's completely baffling why you think they do.
Which makes your socialism some kind of affliction,My socialism is an economic system that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO
WITH ANYTHING ELSE BEING DISCUSSED HERE. You would be just as wrong,
and just as crazy no matter what my views on economics are.
and not a chosen opinion for which you are responsible.Again, it's completely baffling that you think people choose their
opinions. Why do you think that?
But socialists always argue that way about people, that someone's opinion is just determined by their race, or class, or environment or determined by whatever else, and never chosen.Um, no, no one says that about opinions. You're spouting nonsense.
You don't identifiy emotions, or personal character, with a chosen opinion, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT OPINIONS ARE CHOSEN???Of course I acknowledge that decision makers - ie: humans - have such attributes. Stop making up positions for me, it's idiotic and
and you don't acknowledge them as attributes of a decision maker.
pointless.
You only acknowledge objective brains as doing the deciding. It's not really acknowledging people's emotions and personal character.Of course emotions and character can INFLUENCE one's decisions. But
emotions and character do not MAKE decisions. Do you really not grasp
that those are entirely different things?
Pseudoscience about what someone's personal character is,Pseudoscience such as what?
does not really acknowledge people's personal character, because the real personal character is inherently subjective,Nonsense.
and can only be identified with a chosen opinion.I still have no idea what you mean "can only be identified with" or
why you think opinions are chosen.
You simply omit the entire subjective part of reality.I have done no such thing. You are badly confused, as always.
alternative possible future of making the determination to go left, was made the present.Op woensdag 9 augustus 2023 om 19:41:08 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Idiot, to say the decision may, or may not be implemented, as you do say,As I correctly observe. A decision has no effect on anything unless
and until you actually act on it.
then you have 2 alternative possible futures again, and a second decision again.That's an insoluble problem for your model, not for reality.
But you already discounted that a second decision could take place, because you defined it so that decisions cannot make one of alternative possible futures the present.I said no such thing, you illiterate imbecile. What I said is that
they don't do so UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU IMPLEMENT THEM. Simply MAKING
the decision doesn't do that. You have to ACT on it to "make one of
alternative possible futures the present". Do you really not
understand that THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?
So it just more of your irrational stupidity, which stupidity is what you say that the english language requires.Your complete and utter inability to read simple sentences in English
for comprehension is your problem, not mine.
Decisions in the mind already make one of alternative possible futures the present, in the mind itself.DECIDING TO DO SOMETHING AND ACTUALLY DOING IT ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
What part of that is unclear to you? If you don't actually DO
something about it, you're not "deciding", you're daydreaming.
To decide in the mind to go left, then obviously there were the alternative possible futures available in the mind to make the determination to go left, and the alternative possible future to make the determination to go right. And then the
decisions were made either.Again, unless and until you actually go left, that's meaningless.
And then ofcourse in the complexity of decision making processes this determination, governs the body going left. So then to make one of alternative possible futures of the body going left, and the body going right, the present.Yes, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GO LEFT. Not when you DECIDE to do it.
But let's get back on topic. Your dumb worthless throwaway personal opinions on issues, caused by you having no awareness of the entire subjective part of reality, which is the part of it that chooses.That's getting back to word salad.
No awareness of yourself as being subjective, as being a decision maker, >> > no awareness of anyone else being subjective as being a decision maker, and no awareness of any decisions made in the entire inanimate universe, by which man and woman were created, and the earth, and obviously no awareness for the spirit in which
Sounds like a load of woo-woo, and INANIMATE OBJECTS CAN'T MAKE
DECISIONS. You're a looney.
So that all your personal opinions are total trash. Why you called Geert Vanden Bossche a crackpot, and you called Rand Paul insane or something.They're both nutters who hold positions that aren't supported by
evidence, or are contradicted by it.
There were the possiblities available of the earth coming to be, and the earth not coming to be,Cosmologists and astrophysicists would disagree with that rather
strongly. Why do you insist on sounding off on subjects you don't
understand in the least?
and it was decided.
Decided by whom or what? I have asked that question repeatedly. Any
chance you'll answer it any time?
Same for man and woman, it is all decided.What is "all decided", and decided by whom or what?
And as much as it is utterly disgusting that you have no consideration, no feeling, for the spirit in which these decisions were made, because you do not acknowledge that any decisions were madeWhat decisions, and whom or what made those decisions?
, and because if a decision is made, you do not acknowledge that you can identifiy the agency of that decision with a chosen opinion,I don't acknowledge it for two reasons: 1) It's borderline gibberish,
and 2) People normally don't "choose" their opinions.
from your own emotion and personal character, as much as this is disgusting, it is still more disgusting that you do not really acknowledge your own emotions, nor of your family, nor of anyone else.Sure I do.
You only refer to objective brains as making decisions,Sentient beings make decisions. Inanimate objects don't have that
ability.
and you do not refer to anything subjective whatsoever as doing to the job of making a decision.Because it's not clear what that's even supposed to mean.
Meaning that you do not really acknowledge any emotion, any personal character, whatsoever.Certainly I do. What's your point?
And then from this highly marginalized subjectivity, you make your total crap personal opinions on issues, which are completely bereft of any worthwhile emotion, and personal character.How so?
And ofcourse you do that as part of a whole culture of marginalization of all what is subjective, for it not being objective.What does that even mean?
Resulting in bad judgment, weird ideology, and mental illness, and ofcourse the bad judgment resulting in the covid catastrophy.That doesn't follow.
I predict you must be some kind of socialist. Are you a socialist? Which is weird ideology.I've already mentioned quite a few times that I am, so that's hardly a
"prediction". (And I have a strong suspicion that you have your own
personal definition of "socialism" that has as little connection to
the English language as your other personal definitions for words.)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 20:21:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Wrong, a decision is an act.No, MAKING a decision is an act. You then have to IMPLEMENT that
decision, which is a separate act. Deciding to drink water won't stop >> >> you from being thirsty until you actually get up and go get a glass of >> >> water and drink it. What part of this is unclear to you?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/decision.htmlMaking a decision does NOT do that until and unless you actually ACT >> >> ON IT. What part of that is unclear to you?
The act of making one of alternative possible futures the present.
To decide in the mind to go left instead of right, is an act.Yes, making a decision is an act. But it does not "make one of
alternative possible futures the present" unless and until you put
that decision into action. What part of that is unclear to you?
To then go left is the direct consequence of that act.No it's a direct consequence of ACTING ON THAT DECISION. Making a
decision and actually implementing it are NOT THE SAME THING. What
part of that is unclear to you? (Let me guess: the part with words in >> >> English...)
Op dinsdag 8 augustus 2023 om 17:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
Covid, Ukraine, BLM, LGBTQ, global warming, it all has this aspect of exaggerated doing your best.
Because the socialists have thrown out their emotional basis, by defining choosing in terms of figuring out what is best,
so then they only have the feelings left, associated to doing what is best.
There are no common sense socialist policies, it is always this exaggerated doing your best.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
Covid, Ukraine, BLM, LGBTQ, global warming, it all has this aspect of exaggerated doing your best.That's nuts. Where are you getting any of this from?
Because the socialists have thrown out their emotional basis, by defining choosing in terms of figuring out what is best,That has no connection whatsoever to socialism. You're a looney.
so then they only have the feelings left, associated to doing what is best.
There are no common sense socialist policies, it is always this exaggerated doing your best.That has no connection whatsoever to socialism. You're a looney. And
we're done here.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 22:34:27 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:36:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ? Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 22:06:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:Check the posts jillery has made to me over the past year or
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT), the followingI had some good reasons. Sounds civil. People would not take it as
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 18:51:06 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:I used no smilies, And as for your suggestion regarding
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:01:35 +0000, the following appearedNext time try wording "You argued better and won."
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:I confess I'm puzzled. I acknowledged defeat (mostly due to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 08:57:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>> >> >> wrote:We are the champions:
Anyway, your latest attempt to start a flamewar isn't
working, and you can strut off in "victory". Ta-ta.
Sez the troll as he finishes his flamewar and struts off in victory.
https://youtu.be/04854XqcfCY
boredom), but apparently that wasn't sufficient. Oh, well...
She used to be rational; maybe she's been replaced by a 'bot
that just goes on and on and on...?
Perhaps without any scare quotes or smilies.
wording, why would I want to lie?
a lie, but about like "how do you do?" without being interested how
other does or "you're welcome." without thinking that what they did >>>helped any. Who takes it too literally perhaps deserves it and
whoever accuses you of lying sounds like idiot. It would be
interesting experiment for variety however it ends. Might get
new data might get none.
two, then get back to me about "civil".
Yes, go ahead and check all the posts jillery has made to Casanova,
and also be sure to check all of Casanova's posts made to jillery.
That's the difference between knowing what you're talking about and
willful blindness.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 10:53:35 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,692 |