Marks of a cult [Trollville]
Offline What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
Are all cults religious or is it possible for a cult to be non-religious? Marketing cults, such as Amway, are non-religious and pseudo-religious - they are not necessarily theistic.
It therefore follows that it is possible to be cultic - that is under the influence of mind control, and therefore irrational - without being theistic.
What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
A cult needs formation, it needs a person with an overblown sense of themself and an ability to blag that onto other people, to start it. These people are good enough at rhetoric and self promotion to get enough people to believe that they are what they make themselves out to be: a person of insight, a leader, a thinker. They see themselves as natural leaders and people of insight, and they are successful at conning some people into seeing them as such.
Next there needs to be some ideal: something which sets the group apart, something unassailable and profound. This can be God, or money, or unGod. For a cult this hook must be stressed and packaged as something of value. Most cultic information is only available to insiders: Scientologists charge you a fee, the Moonies practically kidnap and brainwash you, the JWs come and sit in your lounge and some mustachioed ponce for unGod comes over your internetz.
Cults will generally be unaccountable in their finances, keeping an accounting system which involves certain hidden factors and non-disclosures. The Watchtower Society sells its literature to the public by pressuring JWs to pay up front for the literature they distribute, and then to contribute any payment they might receive from the public in "voluntary donations". This way they keep free of sales tax. All cults have questionable accounts and none are fully transparent.
To be in a cult will cost money and time.
A cult will have a defined identity that its followers will be encouraged to adopt.
A cult will not tolerate criticism.
People who criticise a cult from within will be removed: a term Orwell coined is "unperson". They will no longer be considered to be a voice worth listening to.
All cults get involved in quack-science and poor scholarship. The quack science will be advanced by those in the echelons who have sufficient grasp of science to sound knowledgable while getting away with the most egregious non-sequitors undetected; and the fake scholarship will be advanced by those zealous enough to provide vaguely credible scholarly support. Fred Franz was typical of this crowd: they fail miserably at academia but gain enough to think that they are better: the result is that they put themselves up as credible scholars on dubious grounds, but of course the rubes are encouraged not to question this.
Scientific quackery is only what is in line with the cult, this may range from the pseudo-geology of YEC flood apologetics through to the fake-psychology of L.Ron Hubbard inc. In between are a myriad of pseudo-science dogmas masquerading as fact advanced by a wide range of self-proclaimed experts and commentators.
Membership is important to cults, and they pass by no opportunity to remind people - especially their followers - just how successful they are. They will spin whatever numerical markers they can in order to make themselves appear "mainstream", "popular" or "in touch". Stats matter to cults, but only the right stats.
Am I missing anything? Yeah: RRS bears the hallmarks of a wannabe cult.
- Login to post comments
No.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I like Pie
Pie Pie Pie
Mmmm PIE!!1!
You know, I'll ratchet back on "every opportunity" and reduce it to "frequently". More than that, I'll add that what you did was pretty cool. To see Martin Bashir moderating a debate is a serious thing. You maybe could have done better in the debate - and I'm not sure that I would have done any better, by the way - but you did well, and I applaud you for getting that done and for getting that huge coverage.
So I will certainly reduce the tenor of that comment and will happily do so.
Now, can you firstly confirm the disparity of IP addresses between myself and YouAre Right?
Then, maybe, indicate why you won't accept a challenge which really you have no way out of? Other than to withdraw the "theism is a mental disorder" meme until you can actually prove it.
This is MADNESS!!
...no...
THIS
IS
PIE!!!
You do know there are programs out there that can hide your ip address and make it appear to be a different one from somewhere else?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Looking up ip's would be a waste of time, however I can confirm that your screen name can be accounted for on other sites, and that I don't suspect you to be a sockpuppet. I do however freely acknowledge that the information you are working with is in fact in concordance with the same information Youare Right is working with. Considering both of you have engaged in similar nonsense on other sites I can see how Matt would have come to think you may be one and the same.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Hence the waste of time.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
OMG! I didn't know about those!
They won't show the specific addresses I use, though. The addresses they show are generic.
I've also got a long history on the 'net which shows that I am a completely different person to YA R. Going back many years. If I'm a sock, then I've (we've) being doing it for over 10 years. That's a long time to keep a sock under cover just for this purpose, don't ya think?
My IP addresses are open and available to Brian. I post from two locations in Paris and neither would be used by a proxy or anonomiser.
I'm interested in your entire lack of reaction to anything that I posted, though. You haven't conceded that you were wrong about Dawkins never denating, for example.
sweet... sweet cake... how i long to lick your creamy
NO! no... i must not think such thoughts! it is a crime against Piedom!
a sin to the great crust! i must stay pure... for pie and only pie... is for i
What Would Kharn Do?
Were I to post in a forum that grass to me is a pleasant shade of green, and someone else were to post the same information, it would not be indicative of sockpuppetry. It would indicate that we were speaking the same because the facts were the same for both of us.
This is the case with your bogus claim that thesim is a mental disorder. We both agree that it is a claim that needs to be backed up strongly and that it is sufficiently at odds with accepted definitions that it needs to be rigorously verified. Hence it appears that we are parroting each other, when the simple fact is that we have both reached the same conclusion independently.
In any event, it is all irrelevant considering that the challenge has been made and will be pursued and reiterated.
It's interesting to me that you haven't responded to that at all. A stage at Richard Dawkins? A stage where you can make a huge point about theism? Hell, that is a golden opportunity to make huge inroads into the falsity that is theism.
And it's taking place in a forum where the rules are all very fair and agreed by both sides - and in a place to which the RRS has contributed financially. A place which the RRS trusts. Go for it.
Alright, thats it....
SHUT YER PIE HOLE!
Don't worry Nialler, getting responses to direct points from the "Rational" Response Squad usually results in an insult and an unfunny LolCat or two, not to mention unfounded accusations as to intent and integrity.
I am SpaghettiSawUs, with a history posting for over a year at RD.Net, some months at Venganza.org, some months at RnR as fwisong. My position on atheism and rationalism is on record, and Nialler is not I.
Brian,
The debate can be on any neutral forum as I've noted some hostilty towards the Richard Dawkins forum. Anyone can suggest one of their own, but there is IIDB, ThrologyWeb and TalkRational among others. I hold no credentials so I am about as equally qualified as Kelly, perhaps less so on objective terms (I didn't major psych, and we have a different system in the UK).
Terms I'm open to, but I think 5 rounds of 2,000 words should be enough.
But if you don't want to that's fine. I was challenged on a point of issue, my point being that you do not welcome critical evaluation of your position. Then you challenged me to support my point and I offered to debate it.
Regards
YouAre
Pie Meet Troll...
Troll Meet Pie
Ah... such a blessed union
Or don't you just flaunt it?
Please keep posting, you're brilliant!
What Would Kharn Do?
Irony.
And other people when they raise a topic are accused of trolling.
Have a good night.
Actually i was hoping you would catch onto that sooner... >.>
Trolling for Trolls in Trollville ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
Thanks for clearing that up, the odd timing and content of your posts seemed to coincide with Rathpig's banning. That was the reason I thought you might be him. I was wrong. You, Rathpig, and Nialler are just posting buddies at RD.net(not that there is anything wrong with that). Got it. Thanks for the info.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
And hence the reason intellectually dishonest people prefer the restraints of a formal debate. Limiting the number of responses and how many words in each is easy to manipulate - put crap out that takes their entire alotted words (or almost) to debunk therefore making them choose between "not addressing your points" or not getting to make their own points. Also, dishonest people will try to go last so they can say all sorts of stuff that can't be refuted - or next to last making sure they can make a conclusion that takes the opponents entire last point to debunk. An "informal" debate with only basic rules (such as no ad hominems or trolling, etc) would be a better way. Dishonest people know exactly how to take advantage of the format of a formal debate.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
YouAreRight wrote:
The "hostility" (your words) was clearly expressed against you and rathpig (and w/ good reason I might add), NOT the Richard Dawkins forum.
The sort of honesty one might expect when engaged in a debate with you no doubt.
As if another reason were needed not to associate with you.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
This site is extremely tolerant as far as banning goes. There are plenty of people they didn't ban that if it was up to me would have been (including the OP.) I'm actually surprised that none of the "this site is a cult" posters have been given the asshat avatar yet. You really do have to be a totally fucktarded asshat to get banned here. I don't remember Rathpig, but if he got banned, guaranteed he was a cuntgristle.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Explain please your objective bases for your personal hostility. Do you have some emotional investment? Has anything which has been said been directed against you?
Lol, you guise.
*Must protect, deflect*
No worries old chaps, you made yourselves perfectly clear on all scores.
To recap. From the OP:
"a person with an overblown sense of themself"... check
" there needs to be some ideal", all together now: "we are the RRS, supplying the lulz all over teh netz..."
"generally be unaccountable in their finances, keeping an accounting system which involves certain hidden factors and non-disclosures"... ahem, can we talk about the tax-deductibles and donations available through supported non-profits with offsets for server fees?
"A cult will not tolerate criticism"... indeed.
"quack-science and poor scholarship"... in the land where critical evaluation means 'I'll get my mates to have a squidge', and peer review is a Frenchman.
"the rubes are encouraged not to question"... don't you dare ask what Brian 'Sapient' et al are actually up to, don't dare ask what they are about.
"self-proclaimed experts and commentators"... 'Want a scientist badge for free?', "historian Rook...", "psych major Kelly...", Brian, dear sweet Brian the entrepreneur, the maker of things which happen.
Good one Matt.
Geezzz you RD guys. Debates regarding at what measurement we would or not agree that religious folks are delusional or "sick" is fine, but it misses the point of why I agree with the RRS tactic of using the slogans and style they do.
It's certainly an effective way to get the attention sorely needed by an apathetic public. IMO, It certainly ends up doing much more good than harm. I do agree that when religious folks do show up here, that pleasantly debating them would be most preferable, but RRS is not a school or cult of teaching ethics, mannerisms, etc. RRS does make many atheists bolder, and that is in it self important progress.
Realize the likes a Jerry Fawell etc, in your face since growing up, and I think you would agree there are lots of atheists that are going to be rightfully militant and angry. Add the million recently killed in Iraq, and the others suffering and FUCK YEAH I AM FUCKING WAY PISSED OFF. And religion is a huge part of why the world behaves the way it does. It is SICK. Is it not sick sick sick ?
So you guys that want be the nice "good cop", great , we need you too. But hey, the angry "bad cop" is needed too. I can play both pretty well, how about you ?
If you have personal grips with anyone, why not take it up with them personally in private ? No one owns atheism. Most of us could give a rats ass if the RRS founders are basking in orgy and extra cash. I hope they are, or will be ! As far as being attention whores, I say LOUDER. That atheist jesus of Dawkins was way loud !
Most are here because of the bigger issues at hand and the "wild and free" feel of this RRS place. Playing or hanging with, or even being the intellegual 24/7 gets old fast for lots of people. RRS is a fun place. Where else can ya get a pie in your face ! Where else can drunk GOD AS I, get so many laughs and learn at the same time. RRS is the fucking BEST.
SO, Hey you RD guys ..... What is really your point anyway ? Dogma ?
BTW, our DOOMED SOUL friend is pissed and a true defender, bless his wicked laughing ass ! And hey, Sapient is a mere mortal, that sinner ! ..... And I wish Kelley was my neighborhood happy hooker ..... and Rook ain't onry enough ! ...... and like I've said, I AM GOD AS YOU ..... well ain't ya ? !!!
Atheism Books.
I really do not want to address this further, as I am far too busy with work and the Vox Day project, and I will not be engaging in a formal debate with anyone anywhere at this time. Nevertheless, here are some threads in which I, and others, post lengthy explanations and responses on this issue. After you read all of them, and if possible, can refrain from quote mining and completely misconstruing our words, if you still have questions, let me know.
Questions on the mind disorder of theism
Theism, semantics, and mental disorders
Religion as a mental disorder
Still Don't Think Theism is a Mental Disorder
Part Deux
Warning! Religion May Cause...
I fail to see how you have been mistreated in this thread by me--I don't find my response to you to be extraordinarily rude considering the manner in which you have been speaking about me in other forums. Particularly with regards to things about which you have absolutely no idea--ie my parenting. What do you expect in response to those things? Accolades and warm welcomes? Guess what--we're human beings, too. And I, for one, am sick of this constant drama. You claim that my blog can be laid to rest as if the only thing I have discussed in 50 posts is one issue, and it has received a lot of attention from some prominent members of the atheist community and has been generally well-received--even by people at RD.net. We may disagree on certain issues, but that doesn't nullify every argument.
I also find amusing the fact that apparently nobody in your thread at RD.net has a sarcasm detector, which confirms my suspiscions, because the entire OMGZ!!1! Internet Addiction... was meant to be a parody of those who use the DSM as the defining factor in mental disorders. Here is a disorder not listed that is nonetheless being recognized by doctors and facilities, thus proving my point that inclusion means nothing in regards to whether the disorder actually exists.
Try reading these with a little bit of objectivity, if possible. I think you'll find that my(our) position is not as extreme as you have presented it. Until then, I am done here. I have better things to do than defend my finances and/or parenting ability to those who have no business even asking about it.
Oh, and BTW, to whomever claimed that Dr. Newberg is at Penn State--you're wrong. He's at U Penn, an entirely different school, and the one that I plan on attending in the fall or spring semester.
Edited to fix links
Atheist Books
Whatever asshat. Sucks that the people administrating the RDF site let the trolls take over. Bet if Richard Dawkins saw this he'd make big changes.
What your avatar should be:
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
AGAIN, Just have to say I really do admire and adore Kelley. That brain and karma and concern of hers ..... nothing to with tits or a pretty face. I AM so lucky to have found her. Kelley is an inspiration for my 23 yr old daughter and friends as well.
Be extra nice to all yourselves people. Lovingly disagree, but keep focused on love, the supreme law of our dimension, even when you must yell in indignation ..... Love is all the answer to all our problems, that we can have any positive effect upon. Want heaven ? Make it so now ..... damn I wish I could write like that Kahlil Gibran ....
Atheism Books.
Hey Matt, can you make that pic a bit larger , how wide can stretching get , just curious ???
Atheism Books.
These links ain't working kelly
? is this the beginning of an atheist ideals war
Retakes seat, microwaves more popcorn
YES , This is WAR ! I Love you fuckers MORE ! More, More, Fucking MORE
and yeah , Kelley my love, the links are messed up. Now I AM really pissed , who done it ? I must love them harder ...... 
Atheism Books.
Kelly,
Thank you for replying. The links that you have provided don't work, unfortunately.
In any event, I've read pretty much everything I could find on the site an none of it is clinching.
The logical thing to do if you have a claim which remains unproven is to stop making it - or at least to frame it in different terms. In this case, I would suggest that you express the theism/mental disorder meme as an opinion and nothing more.
Markshizzle referred to "intellectual honesty" earlier in this thread and I thank him for introducing a concept which I heartily commend. Intellectual honesty dictates that unproven hypotheses or theses should not be promulgated as fact.
It would be appropriate if the RRS were to stop expressing as facts assertions that they have yet to prove.
You really don't undersstand the idea of a debate, do you? It's evident in the way that you apply negative associations to it. You speak of restraints and linits, but that is necessary in order to have structure and to ensure that both sides operate within a structured framework. Remember that this framework is agreed by both sides - not decided in a unilateral way by one side. Both sides hammer out the terms - how many rounds, how many words etc, so the structure is a fairly agreed-upon framework.
You conflate speaking last with "having the last word". That is wrong. It may appear that there are benefits to speaking last, but there are also great benefits to speaking first, as the party replying will spend quite a bit of their content in rebuttal rather than in advancing their point. It's swings and roundabouts. Some experienced debaters of my acquaintance much prefer going first. Some prefer to reply. None of them are "dishonest", though.
In any event, I'm sure that RRS would be allowed their preferred order of things.
Remember, in a debate it's not who speaks last, or who speaks first, who wins. It's about who makes the most compelling argument.
Prove ? What about Galileo's story ? Ummm, "the chosen ones" ? The world is fucking SICK .... proof ???
Atheism Books.
No problem, we are all busy. Brian could do it instead then, since it isn't just yourself advancing this, is it? It was Brian who challenged me to back it up originally, but it appears that the only people unwilling to do so is you lot.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/12041
You can start by actually addressing each and every objection in that thread without resort to ad-hominem and eristic dialectic.
1. Where is the peer reviewed Data.
2. What criteria differentiates in a non-circular way?
3. For the list of criteria you have supplied for an existing recognised set of symptoms: what case studies have you examined in order to understand the intent behind each diagnostic marker?
4. Why do you suppose that a mental health professional must receive training and oversight when it comes to diagnostics? Do you believe it is possible to offer a diagnosis of mental illness without that training but simply through referring to a list of criteria?
No, just dialogue and transparency.
Very well, I spoke generally about a specific. Instead I should have said that only the mangled science in your blog should be put to bed.
You really are having difficulty here aren't you: Internet Addiction is an addictive disorder. Do you think that every form of addiction must be listed? Addictions have pathological markers, whatever the target of that addiction. Just because something gets popular media coverage does not mean it deserves a place on the list.
Do you understand how such lists of diagnostic criteria are arrived at?
Do you understand how anyone making a diagnosis by referring to a list without understanding the background and the intent behind individual observational predictions?
I'll give you a clue: it's in the peer reviewed literature: the case studies. The lists are merely distillations of the findings, there as a general summary of where we are now. You don't use the list without knowing the background, and you don't know the background without rigorous training. Otherwise all one would need to be a mental health professional is a folder full of lists and a chair from which to observe and tick.
What professional training in mental health diagnostics have you, Brian, or Hambydammit received?
I have, and so have many, many others. The weight of professional opinion is against you.
So your position is:
1. Theism is a mental disorder and should be included in psychiatric diagnostic scales.
2. People who insist that psychiatric diagnostic scales are the be-all and end-all of psychiatric diagnosis are idiots.
3. Drugs for the treatments of recognised psychiatric conditions should be available to those who "suffer from" this "theism disorder".
4. There absence of peer reviewed science is not an obstacle to this: because theism is not yet defined as a disorder then nobody is studying it. (This relates to the point of circularity... evident throughout the arguments but put most spectacularly in this faux-pas by Hamby:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/12041?page=1#comment-132319
Parse that bold bit.
"Potentially": what has been said is potentially true (it could be true, it has the potential for being true if it is investigated). i.e. "Potentially this criteria is based on a non sequitur".
"but it appears not": however, it does not have the appearance of being based on a non sequitur.
I cite that particular thread for a good example of the kind of response people can expect when they raise wholly valid objections against the RRS's pseudo-scientific dogma. I encourage anyone to read that thread from beginning to end. The circle jerk evident between Hamby and Doctor Brian (the guy who likes to list the medicines which could be used) is pretty sad ro behold, and the shout-downs and aggression directed is telling.
Would one of my cult children please explain the internet addiction post to him?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Don't bother. How about you answer some of the questions in the post instead? How about providing a "rational response"? Or haven't you got one? I know I've yet to see one.
So I tell you what, if you're at all capable, please respond to my discussion below. I shall not respond to any of your "cult children" or others who wish to make your case for you. Let's talk about what you have said.
from your post here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/12041#comment-131552
Where else could you find self-opinionated unqualified hubris-laden clap-trap other than from people like AiG? What do you know about medical diagnostics Brian? What professional training have you got? What qualifies you to argue that a particular section of society should be able to access a particular kind of medication?
I love this statement: "...we knee-jerkingly assume via an argumentum ad populum fallacy...", I doubt you could identify a fallacy if it came to you on clouds with choirs of angels singing "Hallelujah to the great Non Sequitur".
Brian, it's simple: the reason we don't admit people who believe in God into the same group as people who see things which aren't really there is because - wait for this, it's ever so hard to grasp so think real hard - they are different things. Theists who also happen to be barmy are already covered by medical definitions.
A condition is the cause of the symptoms (symptoms are diagnostic criteria) and theism per se is not a de-facto cause of any defineable set of behavioural diagnositic criteria: some theists are happy, others are depressed; some are unreasonable and closed minded, others are very reasonable and open minded; some are aggressive and obnoxious, others are gentle and agreeable; some think the world is 6,000 years old, others understand and accept the science which says otherwise; some think that prayer is a hotline to a personal listener, others see it as a benefit to the self in looking outwards to that which is only personalised only in language and that being by analogy - which instead represents a more transcendental expression of the whole of that reality which cannot be conveyed in words or pictures and not literally a thing with "all hearing ears"; some theists are community spirited, others withdraw from the community; some are family oriented, others withdraw from their family; some are complete idiots, others are not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that psychology (evolutionary and behavioural) has nothing to say on the question of belief in God, on the contrary there is much there which can be, and is being, studied within these spheres of scientific endeavour. Science, and medicine in particular, doesn't work by generalisation across areas of differentiation: and since there are clear differentiations across the spectrum of behaviours associated with "theism" it is simply too broad to have any practical value to label all forms under one roof.
So, in apparent recognition of this you may well concede that your words only apply to those "who have been unusually affected", but then think about what you are implying here: there was something more - something "unusual" in its effect: science will focus on this, and when it does it is no longer looking at something called "theism", because you have spoken of something "unusual" to theism: therefore not something typical of it, therefore not a de-facto causality of the effect you are studying, therefore it cannot be defined as the cause. You follow?
In short: theism plus a whole host of other things can lead to a person having a mental condition, and non-theism plus the same things can also lead to a person having a mental condition. If this is true, then theism is not a mental condition. Is it true?
Brian
I realise that you didn't consider the questions to be directed towards you in my last response to Kelly, so I thought I restate them generally and ask them directly.
Where is the peer reviewed Data, Brian?
What criteria differentiates in a non-circular way, Brian?
For the list of criteria you have supplied for an existing recognised set of symptoms: what case studies have you examined in order to understand the intent behind each diagnostic marker, Brian?
Why do you suppose that a mental health professional must receive training and oversight when it comes to diagnostics, Brian? Do you believe it is possible to offer a diagnosis of mental illness without that training but simply through referring to a list of criteria, Brian?
Do you understand how such lists of diagnostic criteria are arrived at, Brian?
Do you understand how anyone making a diagnosis by referring to a list without understanding the background and the intent behind individual observational predictions is making a mistake, Brian?
What professional training in mental health diagnostics have Kelly, Brian, or Hambydammit received, Brian?
Brilliant stuff there TDS, please keep posting.
You're really funny, did anybody ever tell you that?
No, seriously, you should maybe think about taking it seriously, becoming a professional comedian. You're a natural.
This is a good one, its technical, scientific, and true!
Fixed links in previous post.
Hope they look...
You have made a claim. You have been challenged to defend that claim. To refer us to your own very deficient discussions in this forum is precisely the same argument as is used by Bible apologists who defend the Bible's authority by referring to what it itself says. It's a circular argument,
The links that you have provided are no proof.
If you have proof of your claim you should be in the position of anyone who has proven their case; you would not refer to multiple discussions of your claim. You would point instead to your proven thesis and say "Here it is".
I had hoped for better from you. If you have substantial evidence of your thesis point us to it. Not to a discussion. Not to multiple discussions. Point us directly to the evidence.
And if they did so, would that make a difference to you or are you and the other locked into your bias?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Show me where the fuck I have a bias?
I demand evidence. No more. That's the way that freethinkers operate. We operate on the basis of evidence.
What we don't do is behave like idiots and repeatedly post macros and stuff such as that when serious questions are being asked
I have no bias; I will go where the evidence leads, and in doing so I will ask for evidence. That is all that I have asked for in this thread.
So please, provide evidence. And less of the troll comments.
Show me where the fuck I have a bias?
I demand evidence. No more. That's the way that freethinkers operate. We operate on the basis of evidence.
What we don't do is behave like idiots and repeatedly post macros and stuff such as that when serious questions are being asked
I have no bias; I will go where the evidence leads, and in doing so I will ask for evidence. That is all that I have asked for in this thread.
So please, provide evidence. And less of the troll comments.