Harry Krishna total intellectual fraud

877 views
Skip to first unread message

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 6, 2022, 3:16:29 PMJun 6
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
- defines choosing in terms of it being in the mind

- then has no solution to relate choosing to physically acting in the real world, because the choices always stay in the mind

- allows no terminology about what is subjective, does not allow to talk about it

- denies choosing makes one of alternative possible futures the present, eventhoug that is the logic used in common discourse in relation to the word choose.

It is shown in physics that alternative possible futures are a reality. A quantumcomputer experiment searches a database without running the search algorithm, merely by exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run.

So common discourse shows it, physics shows it, there is no denying what the logic of choosing is.

There is just the psychology to conflate thinking about what is best before making a decision, with the barebone logic of choosing. A logical error.

And there is no doubt at all that what does the job of choosing, is subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Common discourse is quite clear on this, that a decision may be made out of love, and the love is identified with a chosen opinion.

So where physics says decisions are made, then it is a matter of chosen opinion what it is that makes these decisions turn out the way they do.

It would be impossible to get any information about what it is that chooses, because choosing creates new information, the new information which way the decision turned out.

Which leaves us with the creationist conceptual scheme, which is an accurate description of the logic that we take for granted in common discourse.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 7, 2022, 9:21:30 AMJun 7
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 12:11:29 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>- defines choosing in terms of it being in the mind

Where do you think it takes place? In the kneecap? In Queen
Elizabeth's purse with the marmalade sandwiches? You're too silly for
words.

>- then has no solution to relate choosing to physically acting in the real world, because the choices always stay in the mind

It's truly astounding that you apparently can't understand that making
a decision does nothing to affect the physical world until and unless
you actually act on it, rather than just thinking about it.

>- allows no terminology about what is subjective, does not allow to talk about it

I'm fine with discussing subjectivity. What I object to is you using
your own definitions for words in discussing it. (You also do that
with every other subject, it should be noted.)

>- denies choosing makes one of alternative possible futures the present, eventhoug that is the logic used in common discourse in relation to the word choose.

No, it is not. You are the only person who defines it that way.

>It is shown in physics that alternative possible futures are a reality. A quantumcomputer experiment searches a database without running the search algorithm, merely by exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run.

We went over this a few months ago, and your grasp of physics is as
poor as your grasp of English.

>So common discourse shows it,

It does no such thing. Again, you are the only person who defines it
that way.

>physics shows it, there is no denying what the logic of choosing is.

Where do you think that choices occur in physics, and whom or what is
making them?

>There is just the psychology to conflate thinking about what is best before making a decision, with the barebone logic of choosing. A logical error.

For what has to be the dozenth time, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED ANY SUCH
THING. You're attacking a position I do not hold. Again.

>And there is no doubt at all that what does the job of choosing, is subjective,

Who or what is doing "the job of choosing", and in what way is it
subjective?

>meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

That doesn't follow, and opinions are not normally chosen.

>Common discourse is quite clear on this, that a decision may be made out of love,

Yes. However, not made BY love. There is a huge difference that you
don't understand the language well enough to grasp, apparently.

>and the love is identified with a chosen opinion.

By you and literally no one else, so stop with the "common discourse"
bullshit already.

>So where physics says decisions are made

Physics does no such thing.

>then it is a matter of chosen opinion what it is that makes these decisions turn out the way they do.

That doesn't follow, and again, opinions are not normally chosen.

>It would be impossible to get any information about what it is that chooses, because choosing creates new information, the new information which way the decision turned out.

Another non sequitur.

>Which leaves us with the creationist conceptual scheme, which is an accurate description of the logic that we take for granted in common discourse.

You mean the "logic" that you and no one else takes for granted.

>1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
>2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

This is a collection of words that doesn't communicate anything. What
are you actually trying to say?

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2022, 12:08:12 PMJun 7
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Total fucking asshole, that you insist that decisions are in the mind only, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best. The weather can turn out one of several different ways, this you say is not a decision, because the weather does not consider what option is best.

You are just a liar, as also shown by that you insist that to define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, is wrong, because of that definition not being popular. The number 1 definiition of choosing in the dictionary, is to define it in terms of what is best. So then if popularity is an indication for what is right, then choosing defined in terms of what is best must be right.

Then against your idea that what is most popular is right, you pick the second definition in the dictionary, which definition is really just an extension of the first definition, trying (but failiing) to relate deciding to physically acting. Deciding on a course of action. Which is obviously an error of circular reasoning, in defining choosing with deciding.

Asshole, when you define choosing as being in the mind only, then you can never relate choosing to acting physically. Then you are stuck with acting in the mind, acting in fantasy.

A photon comes to a split, where it can go either route A or B. Then routes A and B converge at a second split, where it can go route C and D.

If routes A and B are open, then the photon will always go route D at the second split. If either route A or B is blocked, and the photon goes the unblocked route, then the photon goes either route C or D at the second split.

A database with a searchalgorithm is placed at route B. The search algorithm is activated, by a non interactive way detector, if a photon passes the detector. If the element is found in the database, then a mechanism immediately closes route B, preventing the photon from reaching the second split.

So then if the photon turns up at route C, then it is known that the search algorithm would have found the element in the database, if it had run.

Proving that possiblities, and the decisions on them, are real things of physics. And not as you make believe, a cultural fantasy about what is best.

There is no evidence whatsoever for what is making the decision on the route that the photon takes. Nor could there possibly be any evidence of it, because it is entirely subjective. Meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion.

One can feel what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did, and then choose an opinion on it, by spontaneous expression of those feelings with free will.

That is how it works. And that you assert that personal character can be established as fact forced by the evidence of it, is what makes you a nazi. That is the essence of nazi ideology. It provides for horrific emotionless judgment, asserted as hard scientific fact, which is the evil of nazism.

And it is obvious that the current epidemic of mental illness, and bad political opinions, is due to the education system turning people into fact obsessed morons who are clueless about how subjectivity works. Because the education system throws out subjectivity, in throwing out creationism, and pretends all in reality is objective. The entire subjective part of reality is discarded.

Every day in the news there is some professor with a nutty opinion. And all the fascism against free speech, the socialism, it is centered around the universities, academics.

It makes perfect sense, be clueless about how subjectivity works, consequently systematically produce bad subjective opinions.

So you are at fault for royally fucking up society with your retarded atheism that is based on being stupid about how subjectivity works.

To argue that popularity is what makes a definition right, is intellectual fraudulence. A definition is right when it works without error, and when it also does not produce error in relation to other words. When it all fits together. And the terminology of the creationist conceptual scheme, the definitions all fit together perfectly.

To not have any proper name to denote all what is identified with subjectivity, is also intellectual fraudulence. It is a 1984 fascist trick, to make an issue go away, by not having any words to talk about it. The word spiritual is a good word for it. And the association of the word spiritual to, woo-woo, that is actually just appropiate. Because woo-woo indicates it is not an objective issue, which is correct.

You're total shitbag of lies, fraud, willful ignorance. And there is no doubt about it that this will reflect in real life that you are a criminal. To intellectually mangle the concept of the human spirit, it must mean that you will also commit crimes against the human spirit in real life.


Op dinsdag 7 juni 2022 om 15:21:30 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 7, 2022, 1:16:31 PMJun 7
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Total fucking asshole, that you insist that decisions are in the mind only, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best.

That doesn't follow at all. You're just babbling now.

>The weather can turn out one of several different ways, this you say is not a decision, because the weather does not consider what option is best.

No, I say that how weather turns out is not a decision because WEATHER
IS NOT SENTIENT. IT IS NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING A DECISION.

>You are just a liar, as also shown by that you insist that to define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, is wrong, because of that definition not being popular

No, I say your definition is wrong because decisions don't make one of
alternative futures the present.

>The number 1 definiition of choosing in the dictionary, is to define it in terms of what is best.

You appear to be missing the point here rather badly. A prudent person
will of course consider the likely outcomes of a decision, but doing
so is not essential to the definition of choosing. One is, of course,
always free to make extremely poor decisions if one
wants to. But why would one want to?

> So then if popularity is an indication for what is right

Which it isn't. Do I really have to explain THAT to you?

>then choosing defined in terms of what is best must be right.

GIGO.

>Then against your idea that what is most popular is right,

That is NOT my idea. I have never suggested or implied any such thing,
because it's not true. It's downright bizarre that you insist on
making up positions for me that I don't hold in any way.

>you pick the second definition in the dictionary, which definition is really just an extension of the first definition, trying (but failiing) to relate deciding to physically acting. Deciding on a course of action. Which is obviously an error of circular reasoning, in defining choosing with deciding.

Can you rephrase that coherently, please?

>Asshole, when you define choosing as being in the mind only,

Again, where else do you think it occurs?

> then you can never relate choosing to acting physically

That does not follow.

>. Then you are stuck with acting in the mind, acting in fantasy.

No, making a decision without ever acting on it would consign that
decision to the realm of a fantasy. You are as confused as it is
possible to be.

>A photon comes to a split, where it can go either route A or B. Then routes A and B converge at a second split, where it can go route C and D.
>
>If routes A and B are open, then the photon will always go route D at the second split. If either route A or B is blocked, and the photon goes the unblocked route, then the photon goes either route C or D at the second split.
>
>A database with a searchalgorithm is placed at route B. The search algorithm is activated, by a non interactive way detector, if a photon passes the detector. If the element is found in the database, then a mechanism immediately closes route B, preventing the photon from reaching the second split.
>
>So then if the photon turns up at route C, then it is known that the search algorithm would have found the element in the database, if it had run.
>
>Proving that possiblities, and the decisions on them, are real things of physics.

Or that you don't have any idea what the experiment actually involves
or what it means, both of which were well-demonstrated the last time
you brought it up in this group.

> And not as you make believe, a cultural fantasy about what is best.
>
>There is no evidence whatsoever for what is making the decision on the route that the photon takes.

There is no decision involved. Inanimate objects cannot make
decisions.

> Nor could there possibly be any evidence of it, because it is entirely subjective.

It is entirely imaginary. Inanimate objects cannot make decisions.

> Meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion.

That does not follow, as usual, and opinions are not normally chosen.

>One can feel what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did,

There wasn't a decision involved, and feelings are irrelevant to
particle physics.

> and then choose an opinion on it, by spontaneous expression of those feelings with free will.

You realize that's self-contradictory, right...?

>That is how it works.

That's not how anything works.

> And that you assert that personal character can be established as fact forced by the evidence of it

An individual's character can be discerned by observing their actions
over time, sure. Do you dispute that?

> is what makes you a nazi.

That's NOT the defining characteristic of a Nazi by any stretch of the
imagination. The Nazis attributed a specific character to entire
groups of people based on pseudoscientific nonsense about race.
Neither I nor anyone else here has argued for anything remotely like
that.

>That is the essence of nazi ideology

That is you being badly confused, as usual.

>It provides for horrific emotionless judgment, asserted as hard scientific fact, which is the evil of nazism.

No one is arguing for judging people based on race or other form of
group membership. You're nuts.

>And it is obvious that the current epidemic of mental illness, and bad political opinions, is due to the education system turning people into fact obsessed morons who are clueless about how subjectivity works.

No one is confused on the topic. As I have noted dozens of times,
you're fighting madly against a problem that doesn't exist, Don
Quixote.

> Because the education system throws out subjectivity, in throwing out creationism, and pretends all in reality is objective. The entire subjective part of reality is discarded.
>
>Every day in the news there is some professor with a nutty opinion.

I see that your sense of irony is as deficient as your proficiency in
English.

>And all the fascism against free speech, the socialism,

Fascism or socialism: pick one and only one.

> it is centered around the universities, academics.
>
>It makes perfect sense, be clueless about how subjectivity works, consequently systematically produce bad subjective opinions.

How does one judge whether something subjective is good or bad? That
would require some objective standard by which to do so.

>So you are at fault for royally fucking up society with your retarded atheism that is based on being stupid about how subjectivity works.

My atheism is based on the fact that there's no good reason to think
that any deities exist, and many good reasons to think that they're
human inventions.

>To argue that popularity is what makes a definition right, is intellectual fraudulence.

Indeed. It's a basic logical fallacy. BUT I HAVE NBVER CLAIMED ANY
SUCH THING, so why the hell do you imagine that I think such a thing?

> A definition is right when it works without error, and when it also does not produce error in relation to other words.

That rules out yours.

>When it all fits together. And the terminology of the creationist conceptual scheme, the definitions all fit together perfectly.

That doesn't mean a thing if they don't actually correspond to
reality. That a framework is coherent does not mean that it is also
correct. (That your ideas aren't coherent for the most part either is
another problem entirely.)

>To not have any proper name to denote all what is identified with subjectivity

There is one, Einstein: SUBJECTIVE.

>is also intellectual fraudulence. It is a 1984 fascist trick, to make an issue go away, by not having any words to talk about it.

There are already. There is no need for you to try to shoehorn another
one into the discussion.

>The word spiritual is a good word for it

It's a terrible word for it if you want other people to understand
what you're trying to say.

>And the association of the word spiritual to, woo-woo, that is actually just appropiate. Because woo-woo indicates it is not an objective issue, which is correct.

"Woo-woo" indicates that something is risible nonsense, Einstein, so
yes, it does apply well to your ideas.

>You're total shitbag of lies, fraud, willful ignorance. And there is no doubt about it that this will reflect in real life that you are a criminal. To intellectually mangle the concept of the human spirit, it must mean that you will also commit crimes against the human spirit in real life.

Says the guy who leaves the English language battered and gasping for
breath in every post he makes.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2022, 2:37:01 PMJun 7
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Dishonest piece of shit, you repeatedly make a point of it that I am the only one who defines choosing in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present. It is arguing that my definition is wrong, because it is not popular.

And there is a difference between the issues of what people say that the logic of choosing is if you ask them, and what analysis shows what logic is used in common discourse with the word choosing.

Goddamned fucking piece of total fucking shit. Total fucking intellectual fraud, who has never uttered an honest word in his life.

And very certainly you must be a criminal, because you cannot get through life while ignoring the human spirit, and not commit crimes against the human spirit. Not possible.

The word sentience, it means something about knowing the possiblities. Indeed the weather does not have a mind where it has sentience, knowledge, of the possiblities. The weather just has the alternative possible futures available, and it is decided. And there is nothing that can be pointed to, neither in the weather, nor in the human brain, that did the job of making any particular decision turn out the way it did. Because only what is subjective can do the job of deciding.

And asshole, when I asked you what it is that the subjective does, then you said it was gibberish. So you lie that you accept the phrase the subjective, to denote everything that is identified with subjectivity. Sure you allow the name the subjective, as long as the word is not used. Again, goddamned fucking fraud who never uttered an honest word in his life.

What is so bad about having a group identity? What is inherently evil about groups? There is nothing bad about it at all. Only what is bad is to make emotionless pseudoscientific judgments about personal character.

You can look at actions all day long, it does not force to a conclusion about someone's personal character, because personal character is not an objective material thing, it is a subjective spiritual thing. The personal character can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

A group is unified by deciding together, not by similarity. Unfortunately nobody understand that anymore, because of everyone being clueless about the spirit choosing.

As we are watching the spectacle on the news of mentally ill people who have lost the tool of the concept of subjectivity, to deal with their emotions. Who have enormous identity problems, leading to personal catastrophy.

You are the one who is guilty for it, you cause that. Evolution scientists cause it.

Oh but there is no problem at all, the problem does not exist. While the world is being torn apart. While the Chinese have a genocidal policy in effect against the Ugyur and Tibetans, which is the holocaust all over again, by the same sort of perpetrators, the evolution scientists.

And obviously you have no fucking clue about physics either, being a total fucking ideologist who refuses to acknowledge decisions as being a reality of physics. Decisions are not a reality of physics, but how then does the bankrobber physically enter the bank, upon choosing to rob the bank? There weren't the physical possiblities of robbing the bank, or not robbing it, there were only the options of it in the mind. Yet the bankrobber is physically in the bank, it's a miracle.

You've got absolutely nothing. No fuctional logic of choosing, or subjectivity. No functional logic of objectivity either. But that should be considered a good thing that you have no logic of objectivity, because having no logic for it means an oppurtunity for your emotions to play any kind of role in your life.

Op dinsdag 7 juni 2022 om 19:16:31 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

Abner

unread,
Jun 7, 2022, 2:46:31 PMJun 7
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Harry Krishna wrote:
> Says the guy who leaves the English language battered and gasping for
> breath in every post he makes.

Harry, a serious question: Why do you bother with Nando? He isn't ever going to learn anything from you, you're not ever going to learn anything from him, and interactions with him are thoroughly unpleasant. The only reason I can think of to bother with him is to keep him busy so he doesn't bother anyone else with his nonsense. Is that it, or do you have some other reason I haven't thought of?

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2022, 3:06:31 PMJun 7
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Op dinsdag 7 juni 2022 om 20:46:31 UTC+2 schreef Abner:
You're a lowlife who doesn't enjoy to have intellectual concepts that work. Another piece of shit without an argument.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 2:26:33 AMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You could hopefully have your self-constructed personal narrative or
cerebral self-talk that overrides impulses from amygdala and other areas.
Or maybe you don’t…yeah you lack those capacities. Pure id, pure impulse,
posing as superego. Inflated sense of self. Inability to see interlocutor
as human. Makes me miss Pagano and his odd issues.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 2:26:34 AMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You know such pronouncements from you are a badge of honor in these parts
right?

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 2:36:33 AMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I sometimes bother with Nando, perhaps out of boredom. Harry Krishna seems
a specialist with a particular set of skills. Back in the days of Ray
Martinez (peace be upon him???) someone named Dana Tweedy took one for the
team.

Ray, Karl Crawford, Pags, so many others…then Nando. Different sort of
person.

Did Pags officially become center of the(ir) universe.

Abner

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 7:41:07 AMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> I sometimes bother with Nando, perhaps out of boredom. Harry Krishna seems
> a specialist with a particular set of skills. Back in the days of Ray
> Martinez (peace be upon him???) someone named Dana Tweedy took one for the
> team.

It's hard for me to imagine being that bored, I must admit! The problem with Nando as a cure for boredom is all you get is the same repeated claims and the same abuse. Once you've seen about five Nando posts, you've seen them all. But you do you, of course.

We've had a number of ... special ... posters here over the years, but Nando is the first one I am truly surprised isn't being taken down by the moderators for language and/or behavior.

jillery

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 9:11:07 AMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
FWIW and to the best of my recollection, DIG has never blocked anybody
for language, although that might have been an aggravating factor. DIG
has blocked people for specific behaviors, including off-topic
posting, multi-froup posting, and nymshifting.

OTOH one poster was banned for "disruptive behavior", among other
things. It's possible DIG might regard Nando's behavior similarly,
although that would be a hard-sell IMO. Also, Nando has been banned
before, and DIG tends to put prior offenders on a short leash.

OTGH my impression is DIG waits to be notified about someone before he
blocks them. From a practical standpoint, this is a Good Thing(c), as
Beagle's filters have become complicated, and modifying them often
causes undesireable side-effects, like a read-only T.O. So please, be
careful what you ask for.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 9:16:07 AMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 11:19:07 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dishonest piece of shit, you repeatedly make a point of it that I am the only one who defines choosing in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present. It is arguing that my definition is wrong, because it is not popular.

No, I repeatedly make a point of it that you can't claim that ideas
and word definitions that only you hold are a part of "common
discourse". They aren't. That has literally nothing to do with whether
they are right or wrong. (They are, in fact, wrong, but that is
another issue entirely.)

>And there is a difference between the issues of what people say that the logic of choosing is if you ask them, and what analysis shows what logic is used in common discourse with the word choosing.

And there you are, right on cue, with the "common discourse" nonsense
again. Neither your ideas nor your definitions fit that description in
any way, shape, or form. Again, this has nothing to do with whether
they are right or wrong, and again, I have never claimed that it does.
You drew that conclusion on your own, thanks to your inability to read
anything for comprehension.

Abner

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 10:11:07 AMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:
> FWIW and to the best of my recollection, DIG has never blocked anybody
> for language, although that might have been an aggravating factor. DIG
> has blocked people for specific behaviors, including off-topic
> posting, multi-froup posting, and nymshifting.

Ah, that explains it ... Nando has learned where those fairly broad limits are and is sticking within them; bad language isn't a violation.

> OTGH my impression is DIG waits to be notified about someone before he
> blocks them. From a practical standpoint, this is a Good Thing(c), as
> Beagle's filters have become complicated, and modifying them often
> causes undesireable side-effects, like a read-only T.O. So please, be
> careful what you ask for.

Oh, I'm not asking for a banning ... The occasional Nando is the price we pay for freedom of speech. It would be nice if the moderator gave him a warning that he needed to express himself using better language, but if that isn't a violation, so be it. Hopefully we won't run into the 'too many Nandos' problem! A group can generally survive one Nando, much like a regular town hall meeting can survive one person who everyone else groans about when they demand their fair time to explain that the town officials are all reptilioids from Arcturus who want to rape our children and eat everyone else's brains with a straw. That one Nando doesn't drive the entire meeting and productive stuff can still get done if people desire it. But if you have too many Nandos, each taking over from each other, all the reasonable people tend to leave the town meeting or spend all their time trying to deal with the Nandos. Anyone wanting to know what the result looks like can just look at alt.atheism, which drowned years ago and now only lurches along as a sodden corpse.

The talk.origins moderator must be doing a decent job all in all, as this group doesn't look anything like the disastrous alt.atheism!

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 5:41:08 PMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You're a total piece of shit, you make no argumentation whatsoever, and then you said you're going to enjoy your life.

Which means, you have no joy in intellectual matters, which means you're a lowlife.

Jill, with here insistence that choosing is defined as not choosing, is obviously totally fucking insane.

You're all fucking nazis, who make it so that personal character is considered to be objective.

It is demonstrable that every single one of you denies that personal character is identified with a chosen opinion. Which leaves only evidence forcing to a concluion as the way to identify personal character. Psudoscience that establishes personal character, and emotions, and no role for subjectivity.

Nor could you ever admit any real role for subjectivity, because acknowledging something inherently subjective is real, would totally break down your ideology. You try to contain all what is subjective in the brain, and then mangle the understanding of it there.

In truth one entire fundamental part of reality is subjective. And you throw out the entire subjective part of reality. Which makes you a total monster.

I explain to people that personal character, like courage, laziness, is an attribute of someone as being a decisionmaker.

1. Creator / chooses / subjective / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / objective / material / fact

Explain that it belongs in category 1 of the creationist conceptual scheme. And that therefore it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

It's great explanation.

Only the persistent idea, that choosing means to figure out what is best, stands in my way. There is enormous psychological force behind that idea, and also it is advertised by academics that this is correct. But people know somewhere that something like laziness is not actually a factual issue, they know somehwere that it is an error to regard it as objective. But they lack the motivation to figure it out, and the confidence to judge that generally all of academics is wrong.

But you are all very obviously fucking intellectual frauds, who don't give a shit about anything anymore. Total fucking fascists, nazis, at universities, that can be seen on the news all the time.




Op donderdag 9 juni 2022 om 16:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 6:01:07 PMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Asshole, show me any reference to any common discourse where the word choosing is not used in relation to making one of alternative possible futures the present.

You cannot do it.

The choice referred to in elections, there are the alternative possible futures available of candidate 1 being elected, and candidate 2 being elected.

Always, for any of the trillions of mentions of the word choosing in recorded common discourse, it is always about making one of alternative possible futures the present.

But you're a fucking lying piece of shit, so the truth doesn't matter to you.

Op donderdag 9 juni 2022 om 15:16:07 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 8:16:08 PMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com>:

>*Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> I sometimes bother with Nando, perhaps out of boredom. Harry Krishna seems
>> a specialist with a particular set of skills. Back in the days of Ray
>> Martinez (peace be upon him???) someone named Dana Tweedy took one for the
>> team.
>
>It's hard for me to imagine being that bored, I must admit! The problem with Nando as a cure for boredom is all you get is the same repeated claims and the same abuse.
>
To some extent abuse implies acceptance of the
qualifications and authority of the "abuser". Nando seems to
score zero on both.
>
>Once you've seen about five Nando posts, you've seen them all. But you do you, of course.
>
>We've had a number of ... special ... posters here over the years, but Nando is the first one I am truly surprised isn't being taken down by the moderators for language and/or behavior.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Abner

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 10:06:08 PMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:
> To some extent abuse implies acceptance of the
> qualifications and authority of the "abuser". Nando seems to
> score zero on both.

Agreed! Nando has earned his way so far down my respect scale that his opinions are worthless to me; his abuse is just as worthless as everything else he says.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 11:11:07 PMJun 9
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I don’t recall him being as abusive in the late 90s. He talked about free
will a lot. At some point it seemed he thought inanimate objects make
decisions. I always had to make the distinction that Pagano was the
geocentric guy, not the one who ruminates on decisionmaking rocks.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 1:31:08 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 22:07:37 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
He does seem to have gone far downhill. Luckily for me, I
don't have to care.

jillery

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 3:36:08 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The occasional Nando is the price we pay for freedom of speech.


Correct, and a fact many posters to T.O. conveniently forget from time
to time. This fact doesn't imply that individuals and individual
venues don't have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to specify what
they regard as disruptive and/or abusive.

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 8:30:05 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Your subjective opinions are the subjective opinions of someone who is utterly clueless about subjective opinions. What is it that you do not respect? You don't believe in the subjective human spirit making choices. So your opinions do not hit the mark. It doesn't meany anything anymore.

The question is how to treat someone who throws out, or otherwise mangles the concept of subjectivity, someone who generally disregards all what is subjective, in a systematic and intentional way.

That person should be treated in a judgmental way, that what they are doing is bad. Nobody else in the entire world is arguing for subjectivity, as far as I know. I don't really have anyone to compare myself to. But it's unimaginable to me, to argue about this in a non-judgmental way. To systematically disregard people's emotions, is horrific. It is historically horrific, more horrific than any horrors of what went before in the entire history of man, because the denial of the entire spiritual domain is much more systematic with evolution scientists / scientists.

It is simply good for someone to accept the judgment that they are evil, in throwing out subjectivity. That judgment is probably neccessary for them to start to accept the validity of subjectivity.

The sole reason that Harry Krishna is on the internet debating at all, is to glorify objectivity, and mangle subjectivity. There are thousands or millions of these types of people on the internet, obsessed with science, fact, objectivity, who all go out of their way to mangle the concept of subjectivity, disregard all what is subjective.

That is simply the truth. I mean the evidence of it is easily available, they are everywhere on any debating group. And creationism is generally discarded in academics, which if it is true that subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, means subjectivity is thrown out with it.

Harry Krishna is a hardcore ideologist same as a nazi. He adjusts his position to whatever is the most that he can get away with at the time. So that before he conceded, well nazis objectifying personal character is wrong, personal character is subjective, and now he says that it is irrellevant. That there is no rejection of subjectivity at all, that it is all just a big fantasy of mine, that rejection of subjectivity does not occur.

Harry Krishna is a total slime. There is just no personal character there at all, he is never honest. And generally all of you are just as bad. Matt Silberstein I remember was also a baldfaced liar. Mark Isaak is another total liar with his book on creationist claims. Really total fucking crooks, intellectual frauds, who will just do anything to advance their cause of destroying the belief in all what is subjective.

Ofcourse there is the psychological force of the feelings associated to defining choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, which all of you are slaves to. So that should be considered in dealing with nazis, that they have this psychological difficulty, but still the best way to deal with nazis is in a judgmental way.




Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 04:06:08 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 8:40:04 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Except ofcourse, everyone cheering when I was banned before, and, the talk.origins charter lying that people are not banned for their views on talk.origins .

Every evolutionist is dishonest, every evolutionist is a fascist. The idea that evolutionists support free speech is a nonsense.

Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 09:36:08 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 8:55:04 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 14:59:17 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Asshole, show me any reference to any common discourse where the word choosing is not used in relation to making one of alternative possible futures the present.

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one proclaiming that your
own personal definitions represent "common discourse", so let's see an
example of someone besides you using any of them.

>The choice referred to in elections, there are the alternative possible futures available of candidate 1 being elected, and candidate 2 being elected.

Neither of which meet your definition.

>Always, for any of the trillions of mentions of the word choosing in recorded common discourse, it is always about making one of alternative possible futures the present

Then it should be trivial for you to provide hundreds of examples of
anyone besides you using that definition of choosing. Go right ahead.

Abner

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 8:55:04 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> I don’t recall him being as abusive in the late 90s. He talked about free
> will a lot.

And defining god into existence by calling him a necessary being. But he wasn't as abusive - just as silly in his claims, but he wasn't going around claiming that everyone who disagreed with him was a lying Nazi fascist commie mutant whatever. It was actually possible to have a conversation with him rather than a tirade on how evil you are for disagreeing with him. He also didn't spend as much time misrepresenting the views of others. I'm not sure what happened to him to cause him to go so far downhill, but I doubt he's coming back even to where he was back then. Back then he was somewhat amusing; now he's just pitiful.

> At some point it seemed he thought inanimate objects make decisions

That's still part of his schtick. The necessary being thing seems to have gone by the wayside, though. Pity, it was such a classic example of a logical fallacy that it was almost beautiful. :)

Abner

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 9:00:05 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:
> This fact doesn't imply that individuals and individual
> venues don't have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to specify what
> they regard as disruptive and/or abusive.

Agreed! IMO if an abusive poster sticks to their own threads, it's generally ignorable. If an abusive poster starts showing up in every thread and disrupting other discussions, that's when they cross the line. It's tolerable to be obsessed with your own views and talk about them in your own threads; it's not tolerable to try to swamp out anyone else / everyone else discussing their own views.

jillery

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 9:10:04 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Except ofcourse, everyone cheering when I was banned before, and, the talk.origins charter lying that people are not banned for their views on talk.origins .
>
>Every evolutionist is dishonest, every evolutionist is a fascist. The idea that evolutionists support free speech is a nonsense.


Your posts, along with those of other pseudoskeptics, along with the
lies of the former president and his supporters documented in current
Congressional hearings, are what give free speech a bad name.

I wonder if any posters will support my marginally off-topic comment.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 11:30:05 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On 2022-06-10 13:07:45 +0000, jillery said:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>
>> Except ofcourse, everyone cheering when I was banned before, and, the
>> talk.origins charter lying that people are not banned for their views
>> on talk.origins .>
>> Every evolutionist is dishonest, every evolutionist is a fascist. The
>> idea that evolutionists support free speech is a nonsense.
>
> Your posts, along with those of other pseudoskeptics, along with the
> lies of the former president and his supporters documented in current
> Congressional hearings, are what give free speech a bad name.
>
> I wonder if any posters will support my marginally off-topic comment.

Well I do. Your signature motto says it all: "You're entitled to your
own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts." Free speech allows you to
express any opinion you like, no matter how crazy (Donald Trump was
chosen by God to be President), but not to make up lies about matters
of fact.
>
>
>> Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 09:36:08 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Abner>> <abneri...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>>>> >The occasional Nando is the price we pay for freedom of
>>> speech.
>>> Correct, and a fact many posters to T.O. conveniently forget from
>>> time>> to time. This fact doesn't imply that individuals and
>>> individual>> venues don't have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to
>>> specify what>> they regard as disruptive and/or abusive.
>>> --
>>> You're entitled to your own opinions.>> You're not entitled to your own facts.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 11:55:04 AMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
See, Harry Krishna is a total slime who has never uttered an honest word in his life.

Now he is again shifting between what people say the definition of choosing is, and the actual logic they are using in common discourse with the word choosing.

A total fucking piece of shit, total fucking intellectual fraud. This kind of dishonesty, that everyone let's pass, because Harry Krishna is on your side. Everything is allowed for the cause of destroying subjectivity. Reminds of Democrats presently.

I never do such things, have I ever? Have I ever been dishonest in debate?

I have limited effort, that I know is true. But that should be passable.

Generally every use of the word choosing in common discours certainly does meet my definition. Everyone can see there are always at least 2 alternative possible futures mentioned, or implied, in any choice. And that the choice is referred to as what made a particular possible future the present. The judge says, you chose to rob the bank. That is how it happened that he was in the bank, by choosing it. That is how the origins of what occurred are evaluated, by looking at the decisions that people made.

Everyone can see it is so, yet, lying, intellectual fraud, corruption.



Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 14:55:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 12:05:05 PMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You are the one who is down hill, again, my intellectual life is great.

What with the creationist conceptual scheme, and the zero based universe theory (that I got from a scientist, but still greater in my conception of it), and my long running argumentation that selection should be interpreted in real numbers that was validated by dr. Kleinman.

You were only ever arguing as a promise, and now you are still arguing like a promise, but now we know there never is anything actually delivered.

You've got nothing. Oh yeah, you've got not swearing, but being very meanspirited and dishonest in debate without swearing.

Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 14:55:04 UTC+2 schreef Abner:

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 12:15:04 PMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
lol, you're totally insane. That is literally a show trial. What about what the fbi was doing there heh? And what about Trump suggesting bringing more security, and then it was denied? What about all the evidence of voterfraud?

The US government, all the evidence indicates, caused the covid pandemic. Through the fda and eco health alliance, they manufactured the covid disease in China. That is presently the most likely scenario. But they won't investigate, same as they won't investigate voter fraud, same as they won't investigate what the fbi was doing at the captiol.

So really, the corruption of the Democrats, affects the world, including my little self.



Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 15:10:04 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

jillery

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 5:15:04 PMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 05:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Agreed!


A sign of superior reasoning!

jillery

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 5:15:05 PMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:11:58 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What about all the evidence of voterfraud?


Since you asked, and to paraphrase Rep. Ted Lieu commenting about what
Jesus said about homosexuality, the following is all the evidence of
voter fraud documented by Trump and his toadies:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You're welcome.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 7:00:05 PMJun 10
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Are you watching cnn? So you know about all of that, and it's nothing. Just normal, thousands of people going round all the dropboxes in a city. That's normal. No it's not normal. You have big problems there.



Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 23:15:05 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

jillery

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 8:05:05 AMJun 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Are you watching cnn? So you know about all of that, and it's nothing. Just normal, thousands of people going round all the dropboxes in a city. That's normal. No it's not normal. You have big problems there.


You repeat above willfully stupid lies. If in fact there was that
kind of fraud to that degree, then why did Trump's stupid lawyers
present no evidence for it in any of his 60+ court challenges? And
why did no election commission present any evidence for it? And why
did Trump himself threaten and bully the Georgia Secretary of State to
**poof** out of thin air the exact number of votes Trump needed to win
that state?

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 10:40:05 AMJun 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Now, that's not quite true. There is evidence that Republicans engaged
in voter fraud. Especially if you include voter suppression as fraud,
which sane people must at least include as parts of the same problem.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

jillery

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 11:30:05 AMJun 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In the spirit of your pedantic point, please note that I was very
careful to specify "fraud documented by Trump and his toadies". The
fraud to which you allude above was *not* documented by them, or *any*
fraud, for that matter.

I acknowledge the likelihood that some voter fraud almost always
happens. However, the relevant point is whether the fraud is large
enough to overturn elections. That's why there are automatic recounts
when the margins are very small, typically less than 1%.

I acknowledge there is evidence that some Republicans voted by mail in
a state different from their residence. Given their Party's
continuing expressed position on voter fraud, those Republicans should
be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

The ultimate irony here is, Trump and his toadies participated in, and
the Republican Party continues to excuse, a felonious conspiracy to
commit voter fraud and overturn the election, one that makes
individual transgressions comparable to farts in a hurricane. And yet
Trump and his toadies continue to have tremendous influence in the
Republican Party, an example of white privilege run amok.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 12:50:05 PMJun 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I fully agree. What I find most curious is that most Republicans expect
fraud from the other guys, and not from the party that makes dishonesty
its highest value.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 2:05:05 PMJun 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yeah, that particular evidence was not developed yet.

Obviously the usa is going down the toilet, It's inevitable now, because of the academic people being insane.

Op zaterdag 11 juni 2022 om 14:05:05 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 2:15:05 PMJun 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Fucking idiot. The Democrats were shown to lie about the Russia collusion hoax, for years, 24/7.

That is very obviously the party that are total liars. The party that has the support of academics, is the party of total liars, because academics is where the dishonesty is coming from.

Op zaterdag 11 juni 2022 om 18:50:05 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 2:15:05 PMJun 11
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Your ideas about election fraud, are the same as your ideas about covid. It is not discerning of the truth, it is just prejudicial total crap.



Op zaterdag 11 juni 2022 om 17:30:05 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

jillery

unread,
Jun 12, 2022, 6:45:06 AMJun 12
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your ideas about election fraud, are the same as your ideas about covid. It is not discerning of the truth, it is just prejudicial total crap.


Based on what you posted only minutes a few minutes previous, you're
so besotted by pseudoskeptic lies that you don't have enough working
brain cells to remember your own words:

**********************************
Subject: Re: Harry Krishna total intellectual fraud
Message-ID: <83d9940d-08f2-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, that particular evidence was not developed yet.
**********************************

IOW "that particular evidence" doesn't exist, and never did exist.
Next time you nymshift, "Ivanka" would be appropriate.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2022, 7:05:06 AMJun 12
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You've got nothing, you understand nothing, you have no honesty.

To choose is not to choose. That is where your intellectual development halted, your brain tied in knots over that, producing nothing of value.

Op zondag 12 juni 2022 om 12:45:06 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

jillery

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 3:10:07 AMJun 13
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You've got nothing, you understand nothing, you have no honesty.


Yeah, I get that a lot from those who choose to be willfully stupid
trolls.


>To choose is not to choose. That is where your intellectual development halted, your brain tied in knots over that, producing nothing of value.
>
>Op zondag 12 juni 2022 om 12:45:06 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Your ideas about election fraud, are the same as your ideas about covid. It is not discerning of the truth, it is just prejudicial total crap.
>> Based on what you posted only a few minutes previous, you're
>> so besotted by pseudoskeptic lies that you don't have enough working
>> brain cells to remember your own words:
>>
>> **********************************
>> Subject: Re: Harry Krishna total intellectual fraud
>> Message-ID: <83d9940d-08f2-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah, that particular evidence was not developed yet.
>> **********************************
>>
>> IOW "that particular evidence" doesn't exist, and never did exist.


Tattoo a mirror-image of the above on your forehead, so you can read
it every morning.

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 9:05:08 AMJun 13
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:51:44 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>See, Harry Krishna is a total slime who has never uttered an honest word in his life.
>
>Now he is again shifting between what people say the definition of choosing is, and the actual logic they are using in common discourse with the word choosing.

No one uses your "actual logic" in choosing either.

>A total fucking piece of shit, total fucking intellectual fraud. This kind of dishonesty, that everyone let's pass, because Harry Krishna is on your side. Everything is allowed for the cause of destroying subjectivity. Reminds of Democrats presently.

As I have noted before, literally no one is confused on the idea of
subjectivity, and the idea of somehow destroying a concept is as crazy
as a three-wheeled orange.

>I never do such things, have I ever? Have I ever been dishonest in debate?

Claiming that your ideas or definitions represent "common discourse"
is untrue, but a lie requires knowing that what one is saying is
untrue, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say
that you're honest, but wrong, rather than that you're lying.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 6:50:08 PMJun 13
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The thousands of people going round all the droboxes, and to the democrat ngo. It is election fraud.




Op maandag 13 juni 2022 om 09:10:07 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 6:50:08 PMJun 13
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
1+1=2 right?, then saying 1+1=3 fucks it up. e=mc2 then say m=ec2 fucks it up.

Nazis saying they can measure personal character, it fucks up the concept of subjectivity.

You fuck up the concept of subjectivity. And the concept of choosing, and objectivity.

So you demonstrably lie that nobody is confused on the idea of subjectivity.

It's not dishonest for me to say that the logic used with the word choosing, in common discourse, is to make one of alternative futures the present.

For generally any mention of the word choosing I can point to the alternative possible futures being referred to, and the decision being referred to as what did the job of making one of those alternative possible futures the present.

It's right there in common dicourse, always when choosing is mentioned. You are a fucking liar for denying it. And defining choosing as deciding a course of action, which is an obvious error of circular logic between choosing and deciding.

You're a totally dishonest piece of shit. Never uttered an honest word, in his life.

What's neccessary here is for an evolutionist to admonish Harry Krishna, for being a lying piece of shit. Put on the moral pressure, from all sides.

But the thing is, all evolutionists are totally dishonest pieces of shit, and Harry Krishna knows that.

Meanwhile, the concept of subjectivity is fucked up. For example, these mentally ill trans whatever, they are clueless about subjectivity, on a deeper level. Some are just playing an intellectual game with concepts, while just using the common discourse logic in real life without a problem. Others in real life have a dysfunctional understanding of subjectivity on a deeper level.

There is no straightforward acknowledgement of the entire subjective part of reality, no acknowledgement of any of what is subjective, in academics. It's already turning out catastrophic, and this catastrophy is only ever going to get worse.

At least, I have a sense of it, that the emotions are getting lost, with the new generation, doesn't everybody? The mental illness, the identity issues. And all kinds of other things. They are being mangled by the establishment of (evolution) scientists, academics, throwing out the idea that anything subjective is real. Throwing out the concept of subjectivity, together with throwing out creationism.




Op maandag 13 juni 2022 om 15:05:08 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

jillery

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 2:25:08 AMJun 14
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:49:53 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The thousands of people going round all the droboxes, and to the democrat ngo. It is election fraud.


Incorrect. In fact, it is willfully stupid noise.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 7:00:08 PMJun 14
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What about the video of the mule actually stuffing the ballotbox with a pair of gloves, and then taking of the gloves?

Op dinsdag 14 juni 2022 om 08:25:08 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

jillery

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 6:00:13 AMJun 15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What about the video of the mule actually stuffing the ballotbox with a pair of gloves, and then taking of the gloves?


What video? You cited none, as usual.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 8:50:09 AMJun 15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about the video of the mule actually stuffing the ballotbox with a
>> pair of gloves, and then taking of the gloves?
>
>
> What video? You cited none, as usual.
>
2000 Mules?



Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 9:15:09 AMJun 15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:46:52 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>1+1=2 right?, then saying 1+1=3 fucks it up. e=mc2 then say m=ec2 fucks it up.

It does no damage to mathematics for someone to give a wrong answer.
If it did, mathematics would be destroyed within a single semester of
high school students learning algebra. You're spouting paranoid
nonsense.

>Nazis saying they can measure personal character, it fucks up the concept of subjectivity.

How would one "measure" character? What metric does one use? Or are
you just using your own personal definition of "measure"?

>You fuck up the concept of subjectivity. And the concept of choosing, and objectivity.

What a bizarre non sequitur.

>So you demonstrably lie that nobody is confused on the idea of subjectivity.

No, really, no one is. Besides you.

>It's not dishonest for me to say that the logic used with the word choosing, in common discourse, is to make one of alternative futures the present.

Yes, I agreed that it's not dishonest for you to say something that
you actually believe. Did you even bother to read what you're replying
to? You're not lying, you're just wrong.

>For generally any mention of the word choosing I can point to the alternative possible futures being referred to,

If you're saying that decisions involve choosing between alternatives,
yes, thanks, Captain Obvious. Everyone already knows that. But no one
would call it "to make one of alternative futures the present" besides
you.

> and the decision being referred to as what did the job of making one of those alternative possible futures the present.

Word salad. Try again.

>It's right there in common dicourse, always when choosing is mentioned.

By you, and no one else.

>You are a fucking liar for denying it.

Perhaps if you learned to write coherently in English, I might be more
accepting of whatever it is you think the word salad I pointed out
above is supposed to mean.

mohammad...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 7:25:10 PMJun 15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Well they, like Darwin, used phrenology, skull measuring, and physiognomy, face measuring, to establish facts of personal character. And now you see Tallis complaining about neuromania, and Darwinitis, which is mostly fMRI brain measuring, to establish personal character. Or evolutionary psychologists asserting that alike software programs in the brain, programmed patterns of behavior, constitute personal character.

So despite your lying, lots of people say 1+1=3, in regards to personal character, you being one of them.

Because very obviously, untill one actually accepts a logic for subjectivity, which is distinct from the logic for objectivity, is personal character really subjective. To say personal character is subjective, but then still using the logic of objectivity with it, is just making what is subjective into a subcategory of what is objective, namely objective facts about brainstates and things.

You demonstrably totally mangle the concept of subjectivity, by throwing out choice from it, and very importantly, starve the most basic terminology for the concept, by not providing a general name for all what is subjective. Then twice saying oh, it's called the subjective, but then also saying it is gibberish to talk about what the subjective does. So you provide a name, and then say it is gibberish.

Total fucking lying that nobody is confused about the concept of subjectivity, while demonstrably people like Tallis write a book about how it is wrong to objectify consciousness, and that it is all a mystery to him.

You fuck up the concepts of choosing, subjectivity, objectivity, that they have no rules in them whatsoever. Which only leaves intuitive understanding of the concepts associated to the words.

Lying assfucker, the alternatives in a choice are referred to as being in the future. That is not a small point their situation in time. You try to fudge the distinction between descriptions of alternative possible futures, which may be sorted in the mind in the present, and actual possiblities inhabiting the actual future.

Always, for any choice, there are 2 alternative possible futures referred to.

Certainly professor Dubois emphasized the distinction between strong anticipation, anticipation as a matter of basic physics, and weak anticipation, anticipation as a matter of the mind making predictions of what happens. A difficult distinction to grasp, but everyone understands eh? The one who has no rule based definitions for anything, who just resorts to a common dictionary containg an error of circular logic. Choosing is deciding a course of action, and deciding is choosing a course of action. Which means choosing is choosing to infintity to a course of action to infinity.

You will be more accepting of what I say, once you accept the judgment that you are evil. Once you take yourself to taks morally, over things like not having any name for all what is subjective. By accepting that the reason why you have no rule based definitions for anything, is your own evil spirit wanting it so. The evil spirit that is in the feelings associated to doing your best, which parasites on your real emotions.


Op woensdag 15 juni 2022 om 15:15:09 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 10:40:10 AMJun 16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 16:20:12 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well they, like Darwin, used phrenology, skull measuring, and physiognomy, face measuring, to establish facts of personal character.

IOW, pseudo-scientific nonsense, that was not used for what you think
it was in any case.

> And now you see Tallis complaining about neuromania, and Darwinitis, which is mostly fMRI brain measuring, to establish personal character.

Um, what?

> Or evolutionary psychologists asserting that alike software programs in the brain, programmed patterns of behavior, constitute personal character.

I think that you're conflating Behaviorism with EvoPsych, and
misunderstanding both.

>So despite your lying, lots of people say 1+1=3, in regards to personal character, you being one of them.

Nice Non Sequitur.

>Because very obviously, untill one actually accepts a logic for subjectivity, which is distinct from the logic for objectivity, is personal character really subjective.

I don't know whether that's supposed to be a question or a statement.
Do you?

> To say personal character is subjective, but then still using the logic of objectivity with it, is just making what is subjective into a subcategory of what is objective, namely objective facts about brainstates and things.

So if we're excluding facts, on what basis are you judging someone's
character?

>You demonstrably totally mangle the concept of subjectivity, by throwing out choice from it,

I have done no such thing.

> and very importantly, starve the most basic terminology for the concept, by not providing a general name for all what is subjective. Then twice saying oh, it's called the subjective, but then also saying it is gibberish to talk about what the subjective does.

Subjectivity doesn't "do" anything. It's a concept.

>So you provide a name, and then say it is gibberish.

No, I said that we already have a general word for the subjective:
subjective, so there's no need for you to hijack another word and
redefine it. It's your writing that's gibberish.

>Total fucking lying that nobody is confused about the concept of subjectivity, while demonstrably people like Tallis write a book about how it is wrong to objectify consciousness, and that it is all a mystery to him.

I have never read the work that you're referring to, but consciousness
and subjectivity are not synonyms in any way, shape, or form, so it's
completely baffling as to what point you think you're trying to make.

>You fuck up the concepts of choosing, subjectivity, objectivity, that they have no rules in them whatsoever.
>Which only leaves intuitive understanding of the concepts associated to the words.

You seem obsessed with making up rules and insisting that everyone
adhere to them. Just like you make up your own definitions for words,
and insist that everyone adhere to them.

>Lying assfucker, the alternatives in a choice are referred to as being in the future. That is not a small point their situation in time.

Obviously one's choices can't affect the past, Einstein, so what's
your point?

> You try to fudge the distinction between descriptions of alternative possible futures, which may be sorted in the mind in the present, and actual possiblities inhabiting the actual future.

Um, what? I can't make heads or tails of that. If you're saying
there's a distinction between making a choice and carrying it out,
that's exactly what I've been telling you. If you aren't, then what
the heck *are* you trying to say?

>Always, for any choice, there are 2 alternative possible futures referred to.

So choices are always binary? Is that really what you're saying?

>Certainly professor Dubois emphasized the distinction between strong anticipation, anticipation as a matter of basic physics, and weak anticipation, anticipation as a matter of the mind making predictions of what happens. A difficult distinction to grasp, but everyone understands eh?

I don't even grasp what the heck you think "anticipation as a matter
of basic physics" is supposed to mean. Can you elaborate?

> The one who has no rule based definitions for anything,

What's a "rule-based definition"?

>who just resorts to a common dictionary containg an error of circular logic

Using a reference book is not "circular logic". It's a way of making
sure you're using words in a way that other people will understand.
You might want to try it.

>. Choosing is deciding a course of action, and deciding is choosing a course of action. Which means choosing is choosing to infintity to a course of action to infinity.

Your ability to jump from point A to point Bonkers in your reasoning
is truly impressive.

>You will be more accepting of what I say, once you accept the judgment that you are evil.

That doesn't follow. And I told you what might make me (or anyone,
really) more accepting of what you have to say: LEARN TO WRITE IN
COMPREHENSIBLE ENGLISH. Your syntax typically ranges from odd to
outright bizarre, and your insistence on using your own definitions of
words turns most of it into gibberish to anyone who isn't you. There
are several examples above, which I pointed out, of sentences that are
either ambiguous as to your intended meaning, or that don't
communicate anything at all as written.

>Once you take yourself to taks morally, over things like not having any name for all what is subjective. By accepting that the reason why you have no rule based definitions for anything, is your own evil spirit wanting it so. The evil spirit that is in the feelings associated to doing your best, which parasites on your real emotions.

Well, that's certainly a unique take on things.

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 7:45:11 PMJun 16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Again you're back to juvenile delinquent mode of conduct, being an obnoxious twerp, begging people for them to hit you in the head with a baseball batt.

Assfucker, what does the spiritual do? What does personal character, like courage, and laziness, do? What does love do, what does hate do, what does fear do?

All what is spiritual is on the side of what makes a decision. It all does the job of choosing, of making either alternative possible future A, or alternative possible future B, the present. And what is spiritual can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Science shows there is freedom in the universe. Science shows there are several different ways things can turn out, and it is decided. And this kind of physics that deals with freedom in the universe in general, is the exactsame physics that is also involved in human free will, in the brain. It is only that the decisionmaking processes are organized in a more sophisticated way, in the human being.

Asswipe, you say choice is not a neccessary part of subjectivity. Very many times you have repeated that subjective opinions are mostly not chosen. That means that you throw choice out from the definition of subjectivity. Only essential parts are in the definition.

Then you piece of shit, repeat the nonsense argument that it is a good idea to use the dictionary definition, while you yourself reject the number 1 definition in the dictionary as wrong. You reject the first definition in the dictionary, and then you do not accept that there is an error in the definition you use, because, it is in the dictionary, and you have to use the dicitionary definition, in order to communicate.

You reject the number 1 dictionary definition, because it defines choosing in terms of what is best. And you argue, the best is not an essential part of choosing. That is certainly correct argument that non-essential things, should not be in the definition. But you do not apply the same argument to the definition of subjectivity. While you say choice is not essential for subjectivity, you still deny that you have thrown out choice from the definition of subjectivity, because of that subjectivity involves choice sometimes.

You are obviously totally corrupt, through and through. You just say whatever to keep on going with your total evil. There is no logic, no reasoning, to your argumentation.

Also you're obviously a liar. The only reason you say that something like the physics of an electron going either route A or B is not a decision, is because of the electron not considering the possiblities of either A or B in their mind, because electrons don't have a mind. Which consideration is really just another way of saying that decisions are made in terms of what is best. You define choosing in terms of what is best, and you are just lying saying that you do not.

Some electron going route A or B in the brain, or some electron in an experiment on a table setup going either route A or B, the physics is essentially the same. There are alternative possible futures available, and one of them is made the present.

That is what constitutes a decision, and none of your total circular nonsense that to choose is to decide a course of action.







Op donderdag 16 juni 2022 om 16:40:10 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 17, 2022, 10:45:11 AMJun 17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Again you're back to juvenile delinquent mode of conduct, being an obnoxious twerp, begging people for them to hit you in the head with a baseball batt.

I see that you're back to psychotic rage. You really might want to get
competent help in the area of anger management.

>Assfucker, what does the spiritual do?

Who knows? What does "the spiritual" mean? It's not a synonym for
"subjective", no matter how fervently you want it to be.

>What does personal character, like courage, and laziness, do? What does love do, what does hate do, what does fear do?

They influence people. What they DON'T do is MAKE DECISIONS.

>All what is spiritual is on the side of what makes a decision.

What does "on the side of what makes a decision" mean?

>It all does the job of choosing, of making either alternative possible future A, or alternative possible future B, the present.

According to you and literally no one else.

> And what is spiritual can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

I have no idea what "identified with" means in this context, nor why
you still insist that opinions are chosen.

>Science shows there is freedom in the universe.
>Science shows there are several different ways things can turn out, and it is decided.

Decided by what, or by whom?

> And this kind of physics that deals with freedom in the universe in general,

What "kind of physics" is that?

> is the exactsame physics that is also involved in human free will, in the brain.

Again, what kind of physics? How does it operate?

> It is only that the decisionmaking processes are organized in a more sophisticated way, in the human being.

In a more sophisticated way than what? Other sentient animals? Rocks?
Subatomic particles? The voices in your head?

>Asswipe, you say choice is not a neccessary part of subjectivity.

I haven't said that, but it's a true statement, so I don't object to
you attributing it to me.

>Very many times you have repeated that subjective opinions are mostly not chosen. That means that you throw choice out from the definition of subjectivity. Only essential parts are in the definition

You mean in YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION THAT NO ONE ELSE USES.

>Then you piece of shit, repeat the nonsense argument that it is a good idea to use the dictionary definition,

Yes, it is, IF YOU WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU.

>while you yourself reject the number 1 definition in the dictionary as wrong. You reject the first definition in the dictionary, and then you do not accept that there is an error in the definition you use, because, it is in the dictionary, and you have to use the dicitionary definition, in order to communicate.

Can you rephrase that coherently?

>You reject the number 1 dictionary definition, because it defines choosing in terms of what is best.

Good grief, but you're dense. Again, that is not an essential part of
the definition, it's just what a normal - die: neither crazy nor as
dumb as a rock - person will do in making a decision. That the example
YOU PROVIDED then goes into other definitions that don't include the
phrase you object to illustrates that neatly.

> And you argue, the best is not an essential part of choosing. That is certainly correct argument that non-essential things, should not be in the definition. But you do not apply the same argument to the definition of subjectivity. While you say choice is not essential for subjectivity, you still deny that you have thrown out choice from the definition of subjectivity, because of that subjectivity involves choice sometimes.

What is YOUR definition of "subjectivity", exactly? And WHY DO YOU
THINK THAT OPINIONS ARE CHOSEN? Also, your use of the phrase that
"subjectivity involves choice SOMETIMES" is an admission that you
acknowledge that "sometimes" it doesn't. How do you discern which is
which?

>You are obviously totally corrupt, through and through. You just say whatever to keep on going with your total evil. There is no logic, no reasoning, to your argumentation

That you are completely incapable of recognizing logic or reasoning is
your problem, not mine.

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Jun 17, 2022, 12:05:12 PMJun 17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You go out of your way to not acknowledge people's emotions, because they aren't objective. You throw out all what is subjective. That is what makes you a total piece of shit. Same as all the thousands and millions of fact obsessed atheists on facebook, who always go on and on about science, facts, evidence, who are all totally clueless about subjectivity. The zombie army of perfectly meanspirited atheists.

I use the word spiritual, you use the phrase, the subjective, to denote all what is identified with a subjective opinion. So you already know what I mean with the word spiritual.

"The subjective", that's a correct literal technical term, which nobody uses except you. Or I might also use it on occasion. You said personal character is subjective. I assume you accept emotions are subjective as well. So then "the subjective" means emotions and personal character. Or is there anything else besides emotions and personal character that you consider to be subjective?

Are emotions chosen things? Can people choose their emotions? Are emotions on the side of what chooses, or are they on the side of what is chosen?

Total piece of shit, you accept the fact that there is freedom in the universe in general, do you not? That there are several different ways things in the universe can turn out. That it could have turned out differently than it did.

So fucking piece of shit, is the physics that deals with this freedom fundamentally the same physics as the freedom that is in the human brain?

Or does physics not apply to the human brain?

And it is certainly true that in this physics about freedom, there is nothing whatsoever identified that is making the decision. Nothing. They never even ask the question. They just note the available possiblities which way the photon or whatever can end up, and then note which way the decision turned out.

According to your total bullshit, this science is wrong. According to you, there can be something found there which is doing the deciding. This is why you ask the question who or what made the decision. You want objective evidence of the decider, while science says, there is no evidence of that at all.

You are the asshole who throws out choice from the concept of subjectivity, I never threw it out. Logic dictates that each and every single last subjective opinion is chosen. I still have the definition of it on the creationwiki page, I already gave you the definition. You throw out choice from the logic of subjectivity, saying it only applies sometimes, so it is no essential part of the definition.

You fucking idiot throw out the number 1 definition in the dictionary as wrong, and then insist on using a dictionary definition. You cannot throw out the number 1 dictionary definition if you insist that dictionary definitions must be used, idiot. Your insistence on using dictionary definitions are vapid. The point is that the word must be defined in the same way that it is used in practical common discourse. And I have already shown that my definition of the word choose is consistent with how the word is used by everyone in common discourse.

You have not demonstrated any difference whatsoever between my use of the word choose, and how the word is used in common discourse. Instead what you do is to continuously shift between the issue of the logic used in practise with the word choose, and the issue of what the definition of the word choose is in the dictionary. Because you have an honesty problem, a morality problem, you continuously shift the issue.

You previously went on a total lying spree, asserting that nobody has any problems with understanding subjectivity. While you said that personal character is subjective, where the nazis said that personal character is objective. How come if everyone understands subjectivity, that they say different things about what is subjective?








Op vrijdag 17 juni 2022 om 16:45:11 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

Harry Krishna

unread,
Jun 17, 2022, 1:05:11 PMJun 17