On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:40:58 PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:all funding of gain of function research. Later, the Trump administration lifted the ban; when the ban was lifted the administration put strict regulation on gain of function research and also provided a very narrow definition of what gain of function
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.Gain-of-function research is very interesting but also potentially dangerous, since it aims to make a pathogen even more pathogenic (personally I do not think that the benefits outweigh the risks in many cases). The Obama administration put a hold on
It is definitely worth deciding whether funding gain of function research is "the best option," but using Fauci as a political punching bag is probably not the best way to decide the best approach to gain of function research. Or you could ignore theidea of finding the best option and just say "Go for it" or not, depending on your subjective feeling at the moment.
It seems to me you are just another evolutionist, which means completely dishonest yourself.
And Rand Paul is very good on many issues.
contraditctions.Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 18:55:58 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
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
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.
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 yourBut 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.
Unaware 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. >
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
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
best.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
scopes 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
emotional 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
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 havesaid 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,
how 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
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.
The research was explicitly intending to make the virus more infective for human beings, which is gain of function in the literal sense. Ofcourse you can make up any nonsense bureaucratic definition, to define anything, any way you want. But the storythat this research does not fit some other bureaucratic definition of gain of function, is also a lie. There exists no such definition.
Fauci is a liar and murderer, and should be put to death. He killed millions of people, probably the main person guilty for it.
I read the washington post for responding to you. My God what a hopeless piece of propaganda mindbending rubbish that paper is.
Which again, is a sign of the widespread culturual problem of marginalization of subjectivity, causing widespread dishonesty.
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 20:05:59 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:all funding of gain of function research. Later, the Trump administration lifted the ban; when the ban was lifted the administration put strict regulation on gain of function research and also provided a very narrow definition of what gain of function
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:40:58?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
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.Gain-of-function research is very interesting but also potentially dangerous, since it aims to make a pathogen even more pathogenic (personally I do not think that the benefits outweigh the risks in many cases). The Obama administration put a hold on
effectively at first (he did explain all this later, though it was not shown on the news that much) but he was not lying. He was asked a question in the context of investigating whether NIH broke its own rules, and using the definition of gain offunction research included in the rules, he told the truth.
idea of finding the best option and just say "Go for it" or not, depending on your subjective feeling at the moment.
It is definitely worth deciding whether funding gain of function research is "the best option," but using Fauci as a political punching bag is probably not the best way to decide the best approach to gain of function research. Or you could ignore the
contraditctions.
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:
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
anywhere.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
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
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
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
Unaware of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
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:
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. >
turn 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
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
best.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
scopes 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
emotional 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
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 havesaid 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
of 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
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,
how 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
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
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:that this research does not fit some other bureaucratic definition of gain of function, is also a lie. There exists no such definition.
The research was explicitly intending to make the virus more infective for human beings, which is gain of function in the literal sense. Ofcourse you can make up any nonsense bureaucratic definition, to define anything, any way you want. But the story
The NIH disagrees with you on that.
Fauci is a liar and murderer, and should be put to death. He killed millions of people, probably the main person guilty for it.Fauci did not kill anyone. You're spouting nonsense.
I read the washington post for responding to you. My God what a hopeless piece of propaganda mindbending rubbish that paper is.Meaning that they disagree with you on something.
Which again, is a sign of the widespread culturual problem of marginalization of subjectivity, causing widespread dishonesty.The technical term to describe your analysis of the problem is
"Batcrap Crazy".
on all funding of gain of function research. Later, the Trump administration lifted the ban; when the ban was lifted the administration put strict regulation on gain of function research and also provided a very narrow definition of what gain of functionOp maandag 31 juli 2023 om 20:05:59 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:40:58?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
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.Gain-of-function research is very interesting but also potentially dangerous, since it aims to make a pathogen even more pathogenic (personally I do not think that the benefits outweigh the risks in many cases). The Obama administration put a hold
communicatingfunction research included in the rules, he told the truth.
effectively at first (he did explain all this later, though it was not shown on the news that much) but he was not lying. He was asked a question in the context of investigating whether NIH broke its own rules, and using the definition of gain of
the idea of finding the best option and just say "Go for it" or not, depending on your subjective feeling at the moment.
It is definitely worth deciding whether funding gain of function research is "the best option," but using Fauci as a political punching bag is probably not the best way to decide the best approach to gain of function research. Or you could ignore
contraditctions.
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: >> > > 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
anywhere.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
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
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
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
Unaware of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
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:
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. >
turn 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
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
best.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
scopes 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
emotional 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
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.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
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 reality
No 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
of 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
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,
how 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
I see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
I don't need for the NIH to tell me what words mean.
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.
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 22:40:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:story that this research does not fit some other bureaucratic definition of gain of function, is also a lie. There exists no such definition.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The research was explicitly intending to make the virus more infective for human beings, which is gain of function in the literal sense. Ofcourse you can make up any nonsense bureaucratic definition, to define anything, any way you want. But the
on all funding of gain of function research. Later, the Trump administration lifted the ban; when the ban was lifted the administration put strict regulation on gain of function research and also provided a very narrow definition of what gain of functionThe NIH disagrees with you on that.
Fauci is a liar and murderer, and should be put to death. He killed millions of people, probably the main person guilty for it.Fauci did not kill anyone. You're spouting nonsense.
I read the washington post for responding to you. My God what a hopeless piece of propaganda mindbending rubbish that paper is.Meaning that they disagree with you on something.
Which again, is a sign of the widespread culturual problem of marginalization of subjectivity, causing widespread dishonesty.The technical term to describe your analysis of the problem is
"Batcrap Crazy".
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 20:05:59 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:40:58?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
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.Gain-of-function research is very interesting but also potentially dangerous, since it aims to make a pathogen even more pathogenic (personally I do not think that the benefits outweigh the risks in many cases). The Obama administration put a hold
function research included in the rules, he told the truth.communicating
effectively at first (he did explain all this later, though it was not shown on the news that much) but he was not lying. He was asked a question in the context of investigating whether NIH broke its own rules, and using the definition of gain of
the idea of finding the best option and just say "Go for it" or not, depending on your subjective feeling at the moment.
It is definitely worth deciding whether funding gain of function research is "the best option," but using Fauci as a political punching bag is probably not the best way to decide the best approach to gain of function research. Or you could ignore
contraditctions.
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: >> >> > > 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
anywhere.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
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
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
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
Unaware of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
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:
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. >
turn 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
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
your best.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
scopes 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
emotional 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
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.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
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 reality
No 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
feelings of 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
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,
about how 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
I see you're still a walking, breathing illustration of the adage
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.
story that this research does not fit some other bureaucratic definition of gain of function, is also a lie. There exists no such definition.Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 22:40:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The research was explicitly intending to make the virus more infective for human beings, which is gain of function in the literal sense. Ofcourse you can make up any nonsense bureaucratic definition, to define anything, any way you want. But the
hold on all funding of gain of function research. Later, the Trump administration lifted the ban; when the ban was lifted the administration put strict regulation on gain of function research and also provided a very narrow definition of what gain ofThe NIH disagrees with you on that.
Fauci is a liar and murderer, and should be put to death. He killed millions of people, probably the main person guilty for it.Fauci did not kill anyone. You're spouting nonsense.
I read the washington post for responding to you. My God what a hopeless piece of propaganda mindbending rubbish that paper is.Meaning that they disagree with you on something.
Which again, is a sign of the widespread culturual problem of marginalization of subjectivity, causing widespread dishonesty.The technical term to describe your analysis of the problem is
"Batcrap Crazy".
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 20:05:59 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com: >> >> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:40:58?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote: >> >> > 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.
Gain-of-function research is very interesting but also potentially dangerous, since it aims to make a pathogen even more pathogenic (personally I do not think that the benefits outweigh the risks in many cases). The Obama administration put a
function research included in the rules, he told the truth.communicating
effectively at first (he did explain all this later, though it was not shown on the news that much) but he was not lying. He was asked a question in the context of investigating whether NIH broke its own rules, and using the definition of gain of
the idea of finding the best option and just say "Go for it" or not, depending on your subjective feeling at the moment.
It is definitely worth deciding whether funding gain of function research is "the best option," but using Fauci as a political punching bag is probably not the best way to decide the best approach to gain of function research. Or you could ignore
contraditctions.
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:
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
anywhere.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
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
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
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
Unaware of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
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: >> >> > > > > 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. >
things turn 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
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
your best.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
broad scopes 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
emotional 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
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.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
academic 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
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
feelings of 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
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:
I alreadyt pointed out numerous lies.
Basically you have the attitude to lie, so, lying continuously.
It is just so, your next reply will also be dishonest, and lying. You simply do not do honesty.
Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2023 om 18:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:story that this research does not fit some other bureaucratic definition of gain of function, is also a lie. There exists no such definition.
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.
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 22:40:59 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
The research was explicitly intending to make the virus more infective for human beings, which is gain of function in the literal sense. Ofcourse you can make up any nonsense bureaucratic definition, to define anything, any way you want. But the
hold on all funding of gain of function research. Later, the Trump administration lifted the ban; when the ban was lifted the administration put strict regulation on gain of function research and also provided a very narrow definition of what gain ofThe NIH disagrees with you on that.
Fauci is a liar and murderer, and should be put to death. He killed millions of people, probably the main person guilty for it.Fauci did not kill anyone. You're spouting nonsense.
I read the washington post for responding to you. My God what a hopeless piece of propaganda mindbending rubbish that paper is.Meaning that they disagree with you on something.
Which again, is a sign of the widespread culturual problem of marginalization of subjectivity, causing widespread dishonesty.The technical term to describe your analysis of the problem is
"Batcrap Crazy".
Op maandag 31 juli 2023 om 20:05:59 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com: >> >> >> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:40:58?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote: >> >> >> > 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.
Gain-of-function research is very interesting but also potentially dangerous, since it aims to make a pathogen even more pathogenic (personally I do not think that the benefits outweigh the risks in many cases). The Obama administration put a
function research included in the rules, he told the truth.communicating
effectively at first (he did explain all this later, though it was not shown on the news that much) but he was not lying. He was asked a question in the context of investigating whether NIH broke its own rules, and using the definition of gain of
ignore the idea of finding the best option and just say "Go for it" or not, depending on your subjective feeling at the moment.
It is definitely worth deciding whether funding gain of function research is "the best option," but using Fauci as a political punching bag is probably not the best way to decide the best approach to gain of function research. Or you could
contraditctions.
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:
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
anywhere.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
I see on the news that fauci is referred to criminal prosecution for lying.
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
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
things turn out. And then you have to choose the values to evaluate the options with. etc.Unaware of his own subjective human spirit choosing in freedom, because according to academics, creationism is wrong.
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: >> >> >> > > > > 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.
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
your best.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
broad scopes 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
emotional 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
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.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
academic 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
dependent 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 moreCan 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
feelings of 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
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:55:10 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,123 |