What are your thoughts on the Venus Project?

[ImprobableJoe]

You know, I am really getting tired of your constant ad hominems and not giving any reason why you think that. I mean why all the constant ad hominems and yet nothing you put forth seems to make any sense about cults; movements, or basic logic about the occult.

I have thought about blocking you; but it will only give you a reason to just complain to the admins of the site although I am reconsidering it.

It has been explained to you multiple times, across multiple threads,,, it is blatantly dishonest of you to lie to us here by pretending that you haven't been presented with clear evidence from dozens of people that your positions are completely nonsensical.

The fact that you ignore facts and explanations is all on your head. It is completely rude of you to spit in our collective faces by pretending that the nonsense you post hasn't been refuted a dozen times over, in a dozen different ways, by a dozen different people.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

It has been explained to you multiple times, across multiple threads,,, it is blatantly dishonest of you to lie to us here by pretending that you haven't been presented with clear evidence from dozens of people that your positions are completely nonsensical.

The fact that you ignore facts and explanations is all on your head. It is completely rude of you to spit in our collective faces by pretending that the nonsense you post hasn't been refuted a dozen times over, in a dozen different ways, by a dozen different people.

WTF are you talking about? I am not talking about every other thread; I am talking about how you yourself have done nothing but commit Ad Hominem's and fixed notions all because they do not agree with your centered world view. What does a Strawman argument have to do with anything?

And no I have accepted my flaws that about the teleportation (which was an actual photon, I was able to clear that up) along with a few other things. I mean what the hell are you talking about?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

WTF are you talking about? I am not talking about every other thread; I am talking about how you yourself have done nothing but commit Ad Hominem's and fixed notions all because they do not agree with your centered world view. What does a Strawman argument have to do with anything?

And no I have accepted my flaws that about the teleportation (which was an actual photon, I was able to clear that up) along with a few other things. I mean what the hell are you talking about?

I rest my case. When confronted with the truth, you pretend that you are completely shocked and unaware of any evidence. This is the same crap you have pulled repeatedly, across multiple threads, and part of why you were threatened with a ban earlier.

Goodbye, poor 123-guy. No one believes you, and no one ever will.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

rest my case. When confronted with the truth, you pretend that you are completely shocked and unaware of any evidence. This is the same crap you have pulled repeatedly, across multiple threads, and part of why you were threatened with a ban earlier.

Goodbye, poor 123-guy. No one believes you, and no one ever will.

Again wtf are you talking about? The only person I have ever reacted this way is to you mainly. A few others but they give the same rhetoric. I thought this was supposed to be the league of reason, not the league of gibbering nonsense where I get harrassed and accused by people like you.

But by all means, qoute me in relivent area's point to me where they have. Please enlighten me cause I have no idea wtf your talking about.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

You know, I am really getting tired of your constant ad hominems and not giving any reason why you think that. I mean why all the constant ad hominems and yet nothing you put forth seems to make any sense about cults; movements, or basic logic about the occult.

I have thought about blocking you; but it will only give you a reason to just complain to the admins of the site although I am reconsidering it.

In a couple of days you've established a reputation as someone who makes vague claims without prior research, doesn't cite good (or any) sources, doesn't follow direction to topics already discussed, misunderstands questions asks of you . . . these and other details scream troll. Please be careful. This is indeed the League of Reason, and reasonable people find it hard to cope with conspiracy theorists whose main source of evidence seems to be "I heard it on a radio show\some guys told me\I've forgotten the details but I assure you it's true."

Joe is completely right to challenge you so harshly considering you seem unable to back up your claims and assertions by anything other than personal opinion.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

In a couple of days you've established a reputation as someone who makes vague claims without prior research, doesn't cite good (or any) sources, doesn't follow direction to topics already discussed, misunderstands questions asks of you . . . these and other details scream troll. Please be careful. This is indeed the League of Reason, and reasonable people find it hard to cope with conspiracy theorists whose main source of evidence seems to be "I heard it on a radio show\some guys told me\I've forgotten the details but I assure you it's true."

Joe is completely right to challenge you so harshly considering you seem unable to back up your claims and assertions by anything other than personal opinion.

Am I not allowed to be given time to gather the information needed? Specific things were told to me, and given me time I can formulate my argument. The only thing that seems to be it is that specific things were missqouted or missinterpreted, like the whole global warming thing.

As far as this goes; This should be a League of Reason as in allowing someone time to gather their argument; not League of Speculation because this guy said someone else told him makes it invalid. I never state that the government did it; I only state the official story does not add up. I suppose I should just leave since people here are not that open to ideas and particular discussion just because I would need time to gather my evidence.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Am I not allowed to be given time to gather the information needed? Specific things were told to me, and given me time I can formulate my argument. The only thing that seems to be it is that specific things were missqouted or missinterpreted, like the whole global warming thing.

As far as this goes; This should be a League of Reason as in allowing someone time to gather their argument; not League of Speculation because this guy said someone else told him makes it invalid. I never state that the government did it; I only state the official story does not add up. I suppose I should just leave since people here are not that open to ideas and particular discussion just because I would need time to gather my evidence.

If you need time, then stop posting and take a few days to get everything straight rather than posting bits and pieces. You're not allowing YOURSELF time to gather your argument, and you've entered plenty of debates without knowing much about the subject.

Everything you're arguing has been debunked many times before by many people in many ways. You have no new information or argument, and considering myself and others here have previously encountered and destroyed the claims you're making, it is understandable for people to be irritated. Open to ideas? Of course we are. But we've heard YOUR ideas so . . . many . . . times . . . before.

If you really mean what you say about gathering evidence, then stay away for a while and gather it. Formulate your arguments. Otherwise people will continue to lose respect for your intellect and your method.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

If you need time, then stop posting and take a few days to get everything straight rather than posting bits and pieces. You're not allowing YOURSELF time to gather your argument, and you've entered plenty of debates without knowing much about the subject.

Everything you're arguing has been debunked many times before by many people in many ways. You have no new information or argument, and considering myself and others here have previously encountered and destroyed the claims you're making, it is understandable for people to be irritated. Open to ideas? Of course we are. But we've heard YOUR ideas so . . . many . . . times . . . before.

If you really mean what you say about gathering evidence, then stay away for a while and gather it. Formulate your arguments. Otherwise people will continue to lose respect for your intellect and your method.

This whole thing got started with this subject being labeled as pseudoscience (which was clearly a misunderstanding based upon me using the term psychological reformation when it was clearly psychotherapy). And then it carried onto their. I really don't understand the method of the idea of labeling the discussion of the Venus Project as Pseudoscience.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

This whole thing got started with this subject being labeled as pseudoscience (which was clearly a misunderstanding based upon me using the term psychological reformation when it was clearly psychotherapy). And then it carried onto their. I really don't understand the method of the idea of labeling the discussion of the Venus Project as Pseudoscience.

I am talking about your behaviour in general, not specifically this thread. You didn't respond to my very clear suggestions about gathering your argument. How can you be peeved when people respond to posts you've made? Collect yourself and try again. Anyway, this thread does qualify as pseudoscience as far as I'm concerned.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

I am talking about your behaviour in general, not specifically this thread. You didn't respond to my very clear suggestions about gathering your argument. How can you be peeved when people respond to posts you've made? Collect yourself and try again. Anyway, this thread does qualify as pseudoscience as far as I'm concerned.

Mind if I ask why specifically? The moderator that moved it here didn't even give me a clear answer.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Mind if I ask why specifically? The moderator that moved it here didn't even give me a clear answer.

That is not the issue. Ask the moderator if you have a problem. The issue is with your method of debate. I pointed out the problems I and others are having with you and you completely sidestepped. Please address them:

If you need time, then stop posting and take a few days to get everything straight rather than posting bits and pieces. You're not allowing YOURSELF time to gather your argument, and you've entered plenty of debates without knowing much about the subject.

Everything you're arguing has been debunked many times before by many people in many ways. You have no new information or argument, and considering myself and others here have previously encountered and destroyed the claims you're making, it is understandable for people to be irritated. Open to ideas? Of course we are. But we've heard YOUR ideas so . . . many . . . times . . . before.

If you really mean what you say about gathering evidence, then stay away for a while and gather it. Formulate your arguments. Otherwise people will continue to lose respect for your intellect and your method.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

If you really mean what you say about gathering evidence, then stay away for a while and gather it. Formulate your arguments. Otherwise people will continue to lose respect for your intellect and your method.

[/quote]

My method of debate has been to defend my position; and clarify what it is and what it isn't. Specific people like ImporbableJoe and richi1174 have given preconcieved notions that the Zeitgeist Movement and even Jacque Fresco are cult leaders. I just take the time to correct and inform them about their misconceptions. I may come off as a little bit condescending at times but sometimes their assumptions is so asinine it deserves it.

At times people need to post their question specific if they wish to have a specific question. My question wasn't originally why it was moved here; my question was why do you consider it as pseudoscience? Also what do you mean about the many times before? Did you hear the same argument for the Venus Project before?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

At times people need to post their question specific if they wish to have a specific question. My question wasn't originally why it was moved here; my question was why do you consider it as pseudoscience? Also what do you mean about the many times before? Did you hear the same argument for the Venus Project before?

You are not in a position to ask me questions. You are here to listen to my advice. The classification of the Venus Project is not the issue. This specific topic is not the issue. You do not supply adequate citations or proof in your various debates. You have demonstrated an inability to understand terms and arguments used to refute you and complained about people not giving you the time to get your arguments straight. If you need time, then take the time to make considered arguments.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

You are not in a position to ask me questions. You are here to listen to my advice. The classification of the Venus Project is not the issue. This specific topic is not the issue. You do not supply adequate citations or proof in your various debates. You have demonstrated an inability to understand terms and arguments used to refute you and complained about people not giving you the time to get your arguments straight. If you need time, then take the time to make considered arguments.

I am just asking for your personal opinion about why YOU think the Venus Project is within the area of Pseudoscience and if you have heard this argument before. But I suppose I am not going to be getting it then.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I am just asking for your personal opinion about why YOU think the Venus Project is within the area of Pseudoscience and if you have heard this argument before. But I suppose I am not going to be getting it then.

**FIRST WARNING**

I've tried my best, but you seem intent on ignoring my advice and issues.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

**FIRST WARNING**

I've tried my best, but you seem intent on ignoring my advice and issues.

I am taking your advice; but I was just asking a personal opinion of you. Why would this result in a warning?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I am taking your advice; but I was just asking a personal opinion of you. Why would this result in a warning?

You were ignoring my repeated issues with your behaviour on the forum, instead choosing to try and get my opinion on an unrelated issue.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

You were ignoring my repeated issues with your behaviour on the forum, instead choosing to try and get my opinion on an unrelated issue.

I might as well leave if this is going to be the reaction I get out of a moderator when I just ask a specific question then. Only been here a short time and because I stand on a controversial area that immediately means I'm illogical.

One point of reason though before I go; stating something like "it has already been debunked" is not an argument. It is a statement. Also I would rather not appeal to a majority of scientists just because the majority agrees in something does not make it true. This has always been my stance and even towards scientists. Idc if it pissess you off and causes me to get an automatic banned really; but I did expect more from a place called the League of Reason and to be more accepting of specific ideas that may be controversial instead of immediately going against it because of lack of reason for it even though their is lack of evidence against it.

My stance still stays as such; so thus I am gone, you may remove my posts and ban me or whatever. See yah.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I might as well leave if this is going to be the reaction I get out of a moderator when I just ask a specific question then. Only been here a short time and because I stand on a controversial area that immediately means I'm illogical.

I cannot believe your inability to understand me here. I made a post warning you about your conduct, which you more or less ignored in favour of trying to ask me an unrelated question. I repeatedly tried to get you to acknowledge me, which you did not. That merits a warning.

Standing on a controversial area doesn't necessarily make you illogical if you can DEFEND the controversy with cited research and evidence. But you, personally, can't.

One point of reason though before I go; stating something like "it has already been debunked" is not an argument. It is a statement.

No, it certainly isn't an argument. But it does provide a reason for people being impatient with someone who is trying to argue things that have already been disproved.

Also I would rather not appeal to a majority of scientists just because the majority agrees in something does not make it true.

In scientific terms, a majority stance on an issue supported by exhaustive peer-reviewed research - which is the only way to guarantee the validity of a theory - makes it about as true as anything you know. Evolution? Majority view = it's true. Would you like to question it? If so, be prepared for a great deal of probing questions.

it pissess you off and causes me to get an automatic banned really; but I did expect more from a place called the League of Reason and to be more accepting of specific ideas that may be controversial instead of immediately going against it because of lack of reason for it even though their is lack of evidence against it.

I didn't ban you; I warned you. I don't care what you believe - HOW you argue it is my concern, and if you can't argue it or support it you shouldn't be surprised when people turn nasty at your inability to do nothing more than repeat half-remembered anecdotal "evidence" from unqualified sources. Did you really just use a lack of evidence against something as evidence for it? Logic fail. By that reasoning we should all believe in the Gods you claim to espouse.

 

[GoodKat]

Ah I can see where your coming from here. Communism still uses a form of government for control and a monetary based system as well.

It is the idea that human beings can work together and have an incentive without the use of money. Because money is a form of artificial incentive. It is subjective and thus we don't need a form of subjective incentive.

Wait, and no government either? SO basically anarchy? That Definitely won't work, humans just aren't good enough for such a system.