Why did your friend always use your IP?
Why did you write this (here and multiple other times):?
I can give you an answer. I can say with near-certainty that you had your mind made up to not consider them good ones before I'd even made them.
You already know my answer to this. Because he and I lived in the same place, and before that I lived near him, but used his computer.Why did your friend always use your IP?
Because I am.
I... I don't quite know what to say to this.Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:09 pmhttp://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic ... t=japanese
Please note the words in bold! This is something I have only noticed now but am kicking myself for not noticing earlier. There is a massive difference between actively following a thread and merely viewing it.Jebus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:05 pmThat was very sad and pathetic. Over 5000 people viewed this thread. I think it was the most viewed discussion of the year on this forum.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:48 pmI notice something very sinister in this comment. Jebus, when he wrote this, had no reason to believe that there is anybody else following this thread other than himself, me or Red. I don't think that there is anybody reading the thread other than us three and (now) PsYcHo. If I'm wrong, then you other people can prove that by showing yourselves. However, I think Jebus has accomplished a very successful cop-out where he can avoid responding to my points.
I maintain this. If there is anybody who is actively following this thread other than Red, Jebus or myself, then prove it. Show yourself. I am almost certain I will not get any responses from people actively following this thread, for the same reason I didn't get any responses before, and for the same reason Jebus did not get any responses: Because Red, Jebus and myself are the only people actively following this thread.
This is from the thread "Correlation between musical preference and intelligence/gender". Now, that thread currently has 652 views. Around 600 people clicked on that thread expecting a discussion about musical preferences between differing genders and levels of intelligence and that is what they got. But what if Jebus did not intervene? What if he instead talked about his musical preferences, and myself and Red joined in the thread to talk about out musical preferences, and we all had a lovely natter about music? How many of those est. 600 would have stuck around? It's reasonable to assume not very many.Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:57 pmThis question is not only irrelevant, but any response is likely to distract from the question posed.
The question is: Is there any correlation between any musical preference and intelligence/gender?
I was very surprised at this. However, on further questioning, it was revealed that Jebus was talking about Macron, not Hamon. When his attention was called to the fact that brimstoneSalad and I were discussing Hamon, this was his precious response:Jebus wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 1:24 pmZero empathy for animals. He has already said that he will always take the side of hunters and breeders over animal rights activists. Brigitte Bardot urged voters to vote Le Pen in order to save animals.
I could never have guessed how handy those five words would come to me in a year's time. Jebus himself only skimmed through the thread he was reading, and assumed that the person discussed was the person in the title, and yet he expects us to believe that there are people who clicked on this thread, continued reading when it wasn't about the subject discussed, read and understood all the points made by Red, Jebus and myself, saw his comment stating that he would respond to the points I made if somebody other than Red thought that they were good, didn't respond because they didn't think that any of the points I made were good, and yet didn't bring this to my attention when I made my comment asking them to show themselves and didn't even make a single comment in this thread in Jebus's favour!
Jebus can not comprehend somebody who is potentially unskilled at debating willingly participating in a debate that they could lose in. This is because in his view, debates must be about proving the opposition wrong, rather than discussing ideas in a civilised manner and drawing from others' viewpoints. And of course, if somebody is wrong, they must be stupid:
Accoding to him, anybody who questions him on his comments must be an idiotic moron! According to Jebus, his viewpoint that the U.S. should abolish the presidency, is the right one, and therefore anybody who disagrees must be stupid. If points are made which go against the viewpoint that the U.S. should abolish the presidency, and undermine his entire argument, he can not concede and admit defeat, because in his eyes, this would make him stupid because he was wrong about something.
Why does he think anger, frustration or sense of inferiority would be a more expected response? Because that is what he feels when somebody describes him or something he says in that manner. It is a threat to this identity he has made for himself of a brilliant intellectual who takes down idiots in debate masterfully. This identity is clearly very fragile, so much so that mere comments from people on the internet are enough to provoke feelings of inferiority in him. I think the fact that he views anger, frustration and a sense of inferiority as a normal reaction to remarks made by people on the internet is enough to show that he needs to seek help.
Well, it was really more about how the Senate should be abolished (well, not abolished, more like reworked so it represents States proportionally (Like the House) instead of equally).
That's what I inquired Jebus about, but he remains fervent in his believe that the Presidency (and all types of Executive Government) should be abolished, but he really hasn't provided any strong evidence other than some examples of the Presidency leading to bad things (which isn't really evidence, as it can be improved. Should we be killing meat eaters or should we give them a chance to go vegan or even vegetarian?). I haven't really been saying Jebus is wrong (although I obviously disagree with what he's saying) but it doesn't really seem as though he has any reasoning for many of his claims, which I inquired him about.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:56 amIt may or may not be true that the presidency should be abolished period. There's no real way to know the effect of that, so it's a more controversial claim. I don't know if anybody would post just to say they don't agree without an argument, because it's hard to make any argument about that since we just don't know.
I don't disagree with that in principle (the Congress was originally meant to be the most powerful branch, but it's hard to effectively evaluate who's the most powerful with all the expansions of power by all three branches), but we'd need strong evidence to determine how much power each branch should have, and the types of powers they should have (keep in mind, Jebus isn't calling for it to be weakened, just flat out abolished).
@Jebus Goodbye Mr. Anderson.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests