The Site's Comment Filter

a) the entire point of the rule against discussing religion / politics (however ill conceived) is to maintain a friendly atmosphere free of heated debates. You're engaged with 3 different people in this thread in antagonistic debates, and you've sought out / stoked these debates very intentionally. You've also made personal attacks directed at all 3 of these people. Infact, you even maintain a long list of quotes from certain people on this forum just to repost in conversations like these, and you did that earlier in this thread. You do this to try to humiliate certain people (unknowingly you're just helping them make their own case, but I digress). That behavior alone seems like it should be a bannable offense, it's clearly a form of harassment, and it's also kind of stalkerish. Now, I don't mind debating you, and I prefer not bringing mods into situations like this, but since you've decided to bring them in... seems to me if anyone should be banned it's you, actually.

If it were just 1 person, or maybe 2, you could say you weren't part of the problem. But I'm impressed you've managed to antagonize 3 people at the same time.

b) throughout the whole thread you've been making atheistic arguments while claiming to be a deist. The fact atheism isn't a formal religion doesn't make your argument not of a religious nature, nor does this mean you are not engaging in a religious debate.

I've said before you're a person who clings to the letter of the law while ignoring / even undermining the actual intent of it. Here in this thread we see yet another prime example of such behavior. It's an abuse of rules which twists them to serve your own perverse ends, but again, typical manager type behavior.

Except that I "argued for" neither. You asked me repeatedly to give you some kind of answer, and I did, without breaking any guidelines. The word deist would never have been uttered if you hadn't asked, then begged for it. You are the only person to bring up atheism, in a laughable attempt to put up a strawman that didn't stand.

I could say "keep trying", but it's insipid.

You foist your assumptions on not just me, but apparently every "manager" worldwide...if you are not a teenager, then I feel sorry for you to be this angst-ridden at your age.

Reading this thread is more complicated than learning all of sicilian opening theory

re @Optimissed: You describe a very unique form of atheism, one which at least is well thought through. I find it surprising but compelling that someone as keenly aware of the mental aspect of reality as you could still be an atheist. The closest thing I can think of to your beliefs is perhaps Daoism or Buddhism. Do you vaguely identify with either of those? You mentioned going on a trek through India back when you worked all this out for yourself.

When I say God what I believe I'm referring to is the identity of reality. There's a cognitive aspect to reality, as you've acknowledged... the mind is a powerful thing... infact, the universe can be thought of as one giant mind. And I think Hinduism sort of looks at it this way. As humans, we have limited perception, we're not in a position to ascertain the powers of that mind. It can do things no normal scientist is going to be able to imagine. But we are localized images of God, in that we're part of reality and reflect its structure and nature, in this sense God maps himself into us. But we're not equivalent to God because we're localized. We don't have the same global perception and global cognition that God has. And so, in response to this idea that we are God, I think I would say that it wrongfully attributes the existence of reality to the self. I think there is this divine aspect to the self - I would call that the soul - and this aspect is consciously accessible, however... we also have to contend with our limitations, and the fact we exist in bodies, in material reality, the fact we have a purpose here we must fulfill... etc. And I think we have to maintain some humility over what we can do and how big we are in the grand scheme. On the other hand... in a sense you could say God is walking the earth every day in the form of those who are in touch with him, in touch with this divine aspect of consciousness.

...

lol

Lol. Don't be daft. I was busy.

It amazing the assumptions you two make in your arrogance. It's like your entire existence is a narrative you make up as you as you're going along (and by you two I mean you and ibrust, just in case anyone defensive is going to assume I am referring to them). It's Monday, the mods will find this thread on their own.

Pro tip: you cannot list religion or politics as a reason in a report. They are guidelines.

That's also offensive - Very Pro tip

I can't help what you find offensive. That's on you.

Ok, Sherlock. Now explain how an individual would explain why they were absent that is not anecdotal, short of there being a news story published about their whereabouts or something. I even mentioned I was going to be gone before it happened in a post you read on another thread, then I was gone for 5-6 hours...

You can make this leap, I believe in you.

Meanwhile, arguing that because someone does not accept anecdotal evidence for things like climate change, evolution, Covid, etc. they therefore find personal exposition 100% anathema is just bad logic. You know that, but you use it anyway...because you have nothing better.

You made no such offer, so that's not a criticism but a backpedal, not that I would probably interact with you in that case anyway. You are supposing that I care about your thoughts on various subjects on merit. No, you have shown pretty much everything you've got over the past decade. I only care about your spreading of misinformation and your underlying malice and ego. The things that drive you to try and contort your narratives this way.

Your first two sentences already contradict themselves.

Your statement:

I didn't think you would accept my offer of a genuine debate.

That does not meet the definition of a genuine debate, or offer of same.

1. The paranormal is unfalsifiable past a certain point that would allow you to go on forever.

2. You knew full well that you were making an offer I had no interest in entertaining when you made it. That was purely for show.

P.S. I don't need to bring anybody in to deflate your bouncy castles. Posters are free to post where they will.

Only your ego could concoct such a bad self-narrative based purely on confirmation bias run amok.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-books-equipment/plz-give-me-ur-opinion-on-the-chess-stuff-i-made-https-checkmategear-shop-products-chess-set-109979337

That's one of the handful of threads I have posted in that you have not today.

Now, follow along here:

You cannot accuse people of only posting recently on only threads that you have read/glanced at recently. The logic is beyond bad for reasons I *really* hope would not need stating, but you never know with you in the mix.

Can I please ask what you are all debating about

I don't even know at this point.

Seriously, since when did this become an argument between philosophy majors?

I don't know. Ibrust has a talent to do that.

This is a titanic struggle between those who would return us to the dark ages, and those who want better for the world...can't you tell?

Seriously, though, here's a synopsis:

The OP is protesting his lack of "free speech" (which not applicable here) on the forums. Other trolls that feel downtrodden have shown up to try and talk about stuff that is against the forum guidelines, because that makes them feel like they are not alone and have a place to belong. The mods are not around often enough especially on weekends, and have missed the heavier religious diatribes of the past day or two, and so there's a holding pattern until they do something.

You definitely have no obligation to speak to me, that is all your choice. You seem to enjoy it immensely, actually, you keep coming back and taking potshots even when you have tried to quit the forums over and over.

As for accusing me of projection and saying my arguments come from having contact with the psychiatric profession...ermm...your spouse is a therapist in the field who is retiring this very week by your own admission a day or two ago. Physician, heal thyself.

"I really do not wish to speak with you any more"

Show, don't tell.

Dio is the sort of person I think who feeds off of others turmoil. He's kind of a blood sucking vampire, and that's not to put him down it's my honest assessment of him, he actually feeds off of being contentious and arrogant toward people. It's why he's been locked in debate with now 4 people in this thread, it's why he keeps a long list of things people have said just to try and humiliate them (unsuccessfully but even so). I imagine he probably gets glee at the thought of having forum members banned or the thread censored. Part of it's just a need for power. At some point in his life he probably felt powerless / humiliated at the hands of the group... then back when he was a manager people had to kiss up to him, and for the first time in his life women were forced to submit to him... On another level, he's probably desperate to recover his lost innocence, which he can never regain, so he actually has to suck that life out of others. etc.. But the best you can do with a person like that is actually just to avoid them.