Winston wrote:Smallcheese and Cdnfa,
f**k you both. Marcos not wanting to meet me has nothing to do with my views on race and genetics. It's his own privacy thing, as Rock and I explained earlier. If you were good at reading people, you'd know, but you two are so overly eager to bash me, that you make false assumptions to do so. Stupid. Plus Marcos himself explained why he doesn't want to meet us in his wife's hometown. But he offered to meet us in Manila in a neutral place. Didn't you guys so?
Both of you assholes are NOT neutral or unbiased at all. You are dickheads looking for a reason to bash me and slam me and insult me, even if unfairly. Both of you will receive a warning for mean spiritedness. So you will have a mark of bad behavior on your profile.
And it's not true that I believe in every conspiracy theory on the internet. Duh. Do you see me claiming that Elvis is still alive? Stupid. Just because I have abnormal views doesn't mean I'm messed up. Real truth seekers, when they dig further, find out that indeed "truth is stranger than fiction". Great truth seekers have known this for many years. Ever since Charles Fort in the 1920's found out about what we are and who rules over us, others have discovered the same thing since, as long as they follow the data. That's the key: Follow the data. Not what you believe or what society tells you to believe. A real truth seeker does that.
But you guys are dumb as bricks. And negative soothsayers too.
You guys, this thread started as something really positive and wonderful. Don't bring it down like trolls just to bash me and bully me.
My argument regarding the visiting pretty much starts and ends with the supposed man of integrity dropping his child's mother and sodding off to China to find something better. I noticed you didn't comment on that. I don't recall if I mentioned that it was the actual reason, but I find it gauling that someone would present themselves as a superior moral considering your actions. That alone would make any decent family man want to have nothing to do with you, or it should. However that would be pure speculation on my part.
Is this incorrect? Did you not do this.
The rest has nothing to do with visits and is just a rant of the way things are here.
A real truth seeker knows that anything can be made to sound reasonable to someone who is not proficient in the field. The book 1421 is filled with made up facts but I know two otherwise intelligent people who fell for it. Look at any diet book on the shelves, they usually don't resort to made up facts but they present half truths, ignore problems they can't address etc. However anyone reading those books would find the first one to be very persuasive. I remember one book on the CRON diet idea that presented data from IIRC biosphere 2 as evidence. However everyone lost weight and had to eat a near vegan very low fat diet because of some problems that come up. What they didn't mention is that the health markers they shows are pretty similar to the effects of the diet style and weight loss. If someone was unfamiliar with the low fat and vegan cultists one would think it was "evidence" in favor of CRON. Take a book that talks about immigration and how it has never been bigger using raw data. True, sure, but the base population was much smaller back then. 100 000 people moving into Vermont is a big deal, moving into NYC, not so much. Worst thing, the guy has been on this for many years and I am sure that problem as been pointed out to him a few times, still made it into the book. Granted one can make the argument that the sources of immigrants are different but that doesn't change the misleading nature of the original claim. Take a historical paperback which tried to make inferences on age in medieval times by pointing out the age of death of people in major positions of authority,,, the few people back then who had access to a varied and sufficient diet and who had to have lived long enough to reach their positions, also anecdotal. The Icebreaker book by Suverov which I actually fell for before I read Glantz.
All these are examples from books published by major publishers and found in libraries, not some web page or youtube video.
A real truth seeker also understands the difference between a figurative statement and a literal statement as well as the concept of hyperbole. Duh. With the things you do believe, saying that there isn't a conspiracy theory you don't believe communicates a fundamental truth about you even if it isn't a literal truth. You have limited ability to tell good evidence from bad. And yes, your abnormal views do mean you are messed up. You don't just have abnormal views like pipelines are worse than transporting oil by train or Justin Beiber is a talented artist. Your views are well, we would need a word beyond abnormal. You need a filter on that open mind of yours. There is a reason why your views are held by a very extreme minority. It isn't because people are stupid as much as it would please you to think so, it isn't because they just don't know, or don't consider it, it is because there really is nothing there and any serious examination of your so called evidence would cause the whole house of cards to fall down. I've seen it myself in several fields I've looked into. It is laughably bad how wrong the evidence and argumentation is. Just like I mentioned above, lies and weak argumentation. You just don't see it, or you don't want to see it.
Oh I am neutral and unbiased. You might want to look up those concepts again. I don't know you except for what you write on this forum. You never stole from me, you never banged my sister. Nor do I have a problem with the basic idea behind the forum, I came here because it is something I see in my future. I have no reason to be biased against you. I judge you on the basis on what you say.
I suppose it is legit that you think I am attacking you, but quite frankly I wish you would see the light instead. I have a friend who falls into your sphere of thinking and as annoying as it is to hear her go on, it saddens me more. I've literally done the "The site you referenced says X and provides links as evidence. None of those linked sites say X and they all actually oppose the premise of the site you referenced. Instead of a "hey maybe I should question that site" she starts shovelling more arguments that are easily countered and studies that also actually oppose her position.
