A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

If you contact either admin they will advise you to put n.a on ignore. Why don't you just put him on ignore? That is what it is for.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An emphatic "NO". I have angered people because this discovery is challenging an established worldview. Of course they are going to resist anything I have to say, but this has gone too far. NA is using me as a whipping post for his own frustrations. I'm a perfect target for his displaced anger and I'm tired of being exploited.

NA is blunt, sure. He psychologizes too much about you, sure. But does he have a point when he says that you don't appear to listen or care about the evidence? Absolutely.

If you're going to present an alternative worldview other than the standard scientific model, it's your burden of proof. You need to have a thicker skin about it. That doesn't justify other people's attacks on you (or your attacks on them), but your responses do at times seem very desperate. Do you think perhaps you should consider taking your ideas to a different audience?

Alternatively, Crumb does have a very good point about using the "ignore" option.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Crumb

If you contact either admin they will advise you to put n.a on ignore. Why don't you just put him on ignore? That is what it is for.

She can't do it because she is insane. She has been putting people on "ignore" many times. I think just about all of us have been on "ignore".

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, you are the first poster on this forum to ever call me charming. That is very nice of you.

It is also additional evidence of her cognitive dysfunction. Possibly the most convincing evidence of all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be some protection under the law, if not on these forums. This is out and out bullying but it's disguised as acceptable online discourse, which we all know it's not. Everyone can see through you NA. I'm telling you now that you or me will have to go, and I think it will be you when all is said and done. This is a clear warning that you better stop your nonsense for if you don't, it will be no surprise that the administrator is going to come after you.

NA, WOW I guess she told you, the admin. are coming after you and are going to throw you into virtual internet jail. I didn't know that 'empty threats' and 'virtual threats' were the same thing. I wonder how good the virtual food is in the internet prison, can you get a 'forum-release' while you are in?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, you are the first poster on this forum to ever call me charming. That is very nice of you.

Don't get any ideas, NA. You're anything but charming. Brilliant, talented, funny, sarcastic, blunt, realistic, pragmatic -- you are all those things. But not charming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If this were a situation were you could not walk away from it (like at your job or at school) then there might be some kind of protection. But you could walk away from it if you were sane. And if you can't walk away from it because you are insane and the bulling is that people want you to get help because they think you are insane, then I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with you.

If you are sane and you think you are being bullied then you can leave. You don't have to take it.

Or you could see ThreeLawsSafe with me and we could settle this once and for all.

You have lots of options, but getting people banned or threads closed or deleted because they are not going your way is not what happens on this forum.

Um, you don't know that yet. Like I said, if your MO doesn't change, then I leave. We'll see if I have any protection. It all depends on whether your ad hominen attacks are regarded as highly inappropriate under the forum rules.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep it up NA, you're sealing your own fate. How dumb could anyone be to be kicking themselves in the ass?

Video, or it didn't happen.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is also additional evidence of her cognitive dysfunction. Possibly the most convincing evidence of all.

And additional evidence of your inherent nastiness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

NA, WOW I guess she told you, the admin. are coming after you and are going to throw you into virtual internet jail. I didn't know that 'empty threats' and 'virtual threats' were the same thing. I wonder how good the virtual food is in the internet prison, can you get a 'forum-release' while you are in?

Don't be so sure that just because something is said online, it won't have its day in court. There are new rules forming every day. In fact, someone just got charged in real court from a dispute online. They were spreading someone's copyrighted material all over the internet by hacking into this person's website. The defendant almost had to close down his business. Thank goodness this guy was prosecuted.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that I have read that counters anything Lessans said.

That might mean something if it weren't for your frequently-admitted reluctance (and at times, outright refusal) to read anything that contradicts Lessans' claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Hey Peacegirl, if you're not insane you could always try answering my questions.

Unless you want people to think you're a dishonest question-dodging weasel.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um, you don't know that yet. Like I said, if your MO doesn't change, then I leave. We'll see if I have any protection. It all depends on whether your ad hominen attacks are regarded as highly inappropriate under the forum rules.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Here are the rules:

Freethought Forum Rules

As stipulated in the registration agreement, the rules here are simple:

1. You may not post any messages or perform any action that impairs the functioning of the Freethought Forum.
For example:
Anything that disables the site from rendering properly
Anything that disrupts the functioning of the server (DOS attack, etc.)
Any content designed to corrupt members' computers (viruses, scripts, etc.)
Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)
2. You may not post any messages that contain content illegal in the United States.
For example:
Child pornography
Warez (pirated software)
Copyrighted content not covered by fair use provisions
3. You may not post any messages that violate the Freethought Forum Privacy Policy.
For example:
Member's undisclosed, personally identifying information

4. You may not post spam.

If you encounter a posted message which violates any of the above rules, you may alert us by clicking on the "Report" button (). Your report will be sent to the administrators via email.

By posted messages we mean any information transmitted via the Freethought Forum software, including private messages, emails, gallery, arcade, links, articles and journal entries and comments, and other current and future board resources. You may report any rule violations on other areas of the board by sending a private message to viscousmemories and/or livius drusus, or if it is not urgent, by sending an email to the admin mailbox.

If you suspect a crime has been committed, please read: How to Report Internet-Related Crime

Violations of these rules may be deleted on sight by the administrators.
Any member who has three rule violations will be banned.

The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion.

I don't see anything about ad-hominem attacks.

But here is the thing. If you are crazy then it is not an ad-hominem attack. Calling someone what they are is just an observation. So if you try to prosecute you will have to have your sanity checked. Only if you are found sane could my posts be seen in any way as attacks.

I've already offered to leave if you would see ThreeLawsSafe with me. But you refuse.

Why is that?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

Now that is some serious 'butthurt', so now if Peacegirl cant answer the question or support her ideas she cries foul, and to have someone banned, NICE.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You better get your rocks off now because you're going to be thrown out of here shortly, if I have anything to do with it.

L.O.L. guess what, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't be so sure that just because something is said online, it won't have its day in court. There are new rules forming every day. In fact, someone just got charged in real court from a dispute online. They were spreading someone's copyrighted material all over the internet by hacking into this person's website. The defendant almost had to close down his business. Thank goodness this guy was prosecuted.

The only person posting copyrighted material on this thread has been you peacegirl. I hope you hold the copyright.

[Angakuk]

Napolean XIV - They're Coming To Take Me Away ...

&feature=related

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um, you don't know that yet. Like I said, if your MO doesn't change, then I leave. We'll see if I have any protection. It all depends on whether your ad hominen attacks are regarded as highly inappropriate under the forum rules.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

peacegirl is hopelessly confused as usual.

No one here -- not a single person -- has used an ad hominem attack on you, ever. An ad hominem attack is NOT the same things as an INSULT. The ad hom is the claim that your argument is wrong because of some characteristic that you have; we, otoh, are saying that your arguments are wrong because they fail the test of reality.

And, even if people were ad homming you, they would not be banned or disciplined in any way. Can you not understand that this is an unmoderated forum? You should stop calling for moderation, for if moderation were indeed executed, the very first thing that would be done, is that your nonsensical threads would be locked.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Is that okay with you, davidm?

Everyone contradicts themselves form one time to the next, especially if you start looking at threads on different subjects, Even in the same thread a response to one person may appear to contradict a response to a different person but the context needs to be accounted for, I'm reading TLS's second post as a bit TIC. but I may be wrong, it would fit with his antagonizing NA. .

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You old romantic.

HEY! . I'm not old, - much.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An emphatic "NO". I have angered people because this discovery is challenging an established worldview. Of course they are going to resist anything I have to say, but this has gone too far. NA is using me as a whipping post for his own frustrations. I'm a perfect target for his displaced anger and I'm tired of being exploited.

The term is 'Whipping Boy', you really need to get out more.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Everyone contradicts themselves form one time to the next, especially if you start looking at threads on different subjects, Even in the same thread a response to one person may appear to contradict a response to a different person but the context needs to be accounted for, I'm reading TLS's second post as a bit TIC. but I may be wrong, it would fit with his antagonizing NA. .

Who or what is TIC?

Are you accusing me of being a sock again, doc? What's with that? Why do you feel the need to do that?

[davidm]

I notice a pattern of ThreeLawsSafe asking stuff like, "how do you feel about that?" and "why do you feel the need to do that?" I can't help but thinking he asks these kind of questions in his practice, and this makes me think he is in the process of working up of the people here -- dare I say it? -- a diagnosis.

[naturalist.atheist]

Maybe he's missing a sock?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, you are the first poster on this forum to ever call me charming. That is very nice of you.

You're just an old romantic.