Are you asking me to justify to you how I view that site?
Why would you need me to do that?
Fine, you believe/view it differently than me. I don't see that as a problem to be overcome.
I don't need you to agree with me.
No I was delving into what you understand about AI since you now have it personified and identified wrongfully as the author of the cult facts website.
As usual you pontificate off the top of your head then refuse to own anything you say.
This is about facts not whether someone agrees with you or not.
Its amazing how even facts get twisted up when people are involved in cults.
I find it interesting you would characterize the AI claim that way.
It didn't claim "50 of the Way's past leaders coerced people..." that's what not it claimed.
It claimed conspiracy.
Conspiracy is a very specific word, the meaning of which is NOT encompassed by how you apparently paraphrased it.
Therefore, I AM saying, your paraphrase thereof, or characterization is NOT what the AI alleged.
As far as "sex outside of marriage..." consider there are approx 8 BILLION people alive on Earth at this time.
Sex is universal. Pretty much everybody does it.
As to your effort to pigeon-hole me into "debating" or even answering the question the way you phrased it, I am not interested and will not do so.
As to the old Wierwille tactic of answering a question with a question, in this case, I explained to you why I will not "debate" the question as you asked it.
Have a nice day, and a Happy New Year.
Just trying to confirm the position that you are waffling on.
You stated the cult facts website had exaggerated claims. I was just asking what exactly you felt they were.
I see. So you can spread an opinion that bolsters TWI and spreads doubt about the facts in a website labeled “cult facts” but anybody questioning your doubt of the facts gets accused of a God complex?
Sounds like you have some issues to sort through. I’m not arguing with you about your delusions.
Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources.
This stands in direct opposition to TWI who obscure and hide facts about their past to include sexual manipulation and finance manipulation lawsuits.
Sounds like you have some issues to sort through. I’m not arguing with you about your delusions.
Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources
Wow. "Sounds like you have some issues to sort through." How is that NOT a demonstration of projection?
"I’m not arguing with you about your delusions." Oh, really? MY delusions?
"Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources" Have you ever taken any courses or done any reading on the subject of logic, logical fallacies, or critical thinking/analysis? This might be a good time to start doing so.
So, any presentation of claims, as long as neatly formatted and accompanied by "any ol' someone's written statement (footnotes, bibliography, etc.) attesting to the veracity of those claims" automatically qualifies that presentation as factual?
Wow. "Sounds like you have some issues to sort through." How is that NOT a demonstration of projection?
"I’m not arguing with you about your delusions." Oh, really? MY delusions?
It is an observation about your approach to the cult facts website where you like to label facts as something to ignore that robots made up. (paraphrase of you) since the observation is of your behavior not mine it is illogical to call it projection.
Yes. Your delusions. I tend to call facts facts as opposed to something to ignore that robots made up.
It is an observation about your approach to the cult facts website where you like to label facts as something to ignore that robots made up. (paraphrase of you) since the observation is of your behavior not mine it is illogical to call it projection.
Yes. Your delusions. I tend to call facts facts as opposed to something to ignore that robots made up.
Your private interpretation of what I wrote about the cult facts website.
When you write "where you like to label..." what Chockfull claims are, without making clear how/why s/he characterizes said claims as facts...," action(s) are most probably projection.
I acknowledge that by directly pointing out what you said is dubious, I am inviting you, unfortunately not to a discussion of disagreement but to most likely inviting you to defend your claims.
That's, to me, unfortunate. What I'm NOT doing, is characterizing YOU.
And I'm NOT prescribing what I believe you SHOULD do... about anything.
You are who and what you are and what you want to be.
IF I were to invite you to discuss particular disagreement about it, I would ask you to define the parameters of this phenomenon you claim is FACT.
Is it solely that some entity (could be human intelligence or artificial intelligence) has a source outside of itself to point to as a source? Or is it important for the source to be determined as authoritative?
Your private interpretation of what I wrote about the cult facts website.
When you write "where you like to label..." what Chockfull claims are, without making clear how/why s/he characterizes said claims as facts...," action(s) are most probably projection.
I acknowledge that by directly pointing out what you said is dubious, I am inviting you, unfortunately not to a discussion of disagreement but to most likely inviting you to defend your claims.
That's, to me, unfortunate. What I'm NOT doing, is characterizing YOU.
And I'm NOT prescribing what I believe you SHOULD do... about anything.
You are who and what you are and what you want to be.
IF I were to invite you to discuss particular disagreement about it, I would ask you to define the parameters of this phenomenon you claim is FACT.
Is it solely that some entity (could be human intelligence or artificial intelligence) has a source outside of itself to point to as a source? Or is it important for the source to be determined as authoritative?
And now you are babbling. That is your “projection”.
And deflecting from answering a simple question - “what facts from cult facts do you disagree with or consider exaggerated?”
Put another way, what makes you think I am required to comply with your demands?
Whose brain died and made you post babbling nonsense?
Put another way how paranoid do you have to be to consider a question clarifying one of your babbling posts to be “demands”?
Feel free to not answer any questions directed at you and to post more nonsense. Oh wait you don’t need instructions to do that you do it 2x more than anyone else ever has on this site.
Clueless deflection completely unaware of negative impact of actions and blaming it on my supposed “mood”.
Coincidentally this mirrors the complete lack of awareness and ownership of words and actions of TWI leadership even though I don’t think this individual was involved in TWI leadership.
Clueless deflection completely unaware of negative impact of actions and blaming it on my supposed “mood”.
Coincidentally this mirrors the complete lack of awareness and ownership of words and actions of TWI leadership even though I don’t think this individual was involved in TWI leadership.
Gosh, who would guess that wishing someone well could warrant such a response?
Gosh, who would guess that wishing someone well could warrant such a response?
Gosh who would guess playing dumb, dodging questions about what you write, and gaslighting people about their supposed mood could possibly make you unpopular?
Gosh who would guess playing dumb, dodging questions about what you write, and gaslighting people about their supposed mood could possibly make you unpopular?
Okay, you don't like me. I accept that. Why, again, would you EXPECT (even if not demanding) me to do anything other than decline to respond to your questions?
How does your insulting commenting pose anything that a reasonable person would expect me to respond to?
Put another way, why do you think it is acceptable for you to hijack my thread?
Okay, you don't like me. I accept that. Why, again, would you EXPECT (even if not demanding) me to do anything other than decline to respond to your questions?
How does your insulting commenting pose anything that a reasonable person would expect me to respond to?
Put another way, why do you think it is acceptable for you to hijack my thread?
Why would you possibly think that someone asking you to clarify a post is hijacking your thread? Maybe your response to the question of “who died and made you God?” sounds more like you are hijacking your own thread with personal attacks.
Certainly your vehement insistence on not answering any questions about what you post could hijack a thread.
Why would you possibly think that someone asking you to clarify a post is hijacking your thread? Maybe your response to the question of “who died and made you God?” sounds more like you are hijacking your own thread with personal attacks.
Certainly your vehement insistence on not answering any questions about what you post could hijack a thread.
Look in the mirror for your hijacking culprit.
You can have the last word. I disagree with you, but you get/got to have your say on my thread. Congrats.
For the sake of this post, pretend I am using the modcat profile. I'm too lazy to switch over.
Rocky, Chockfull, you've spent two pages and heaven knows how many hours arguing over literally nothing. Nothing. You don't disagree on the basics. You're arguing over the potential for inaccuracy in AI?
Are you serious?
We agree on the original post and its application to TWI. But because AI is not a perfect technology, we're going to waste pixels and emotional energy?
I think you guys worship a non-existent God and you (not you, being generic here) lie to yourselves about His alleged intervention in your life, and you are nicer to ME than you are to each other about this non-issue. PLEASE. Find something fun to argue about. Like Speaking Hypothetically In Tongues.
For the sake of this post, pretend I am using the modcat profile. I'm too lazy to switch over.
Rocky, Chockfull, you've spent two pages and heaven knows how many hours arguing over literally nothing. Nothing. You don't disagree on the basics. You're arguing over the potential for inaccuracy in AI?
Are you serious?
We agree on the original post and its application to TWI. But because AI is not a perfect technology, we're going to waste pixels and emotional energy?
I think you guys worship a non-existent God and you (not you, being generic here) lie to yourselves about His alleged intervention in your life, and you are nicer to ME than you are to each other about this non-issue. PLEASE. Find something fun to argue about. Like Speaking Hypothetically In Tongues.
Basta.
Whatever. I’m just asking what he finds inaccurate about the claims on the site.
We haven’t even got to discussing limitations of AI because of all the dancing and deflection and name calling and asking whether I’m God or not.
Yes I’m not dropping it and continuing to answer. I have no idea whether the argument is over nothing or it actually has elements that can be addressed.
Sadly it’s unlikely I’ll ever know that due to all the drama and deflection.
You get more civil treatment because although your position is opposite you don’t engage in all the other nonsense deflecting questions personally attacking and asking if someone is God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
23
30
5
Popular Days
Jan 5
20
Jan 3
10
Dec 31
7
Jan 1
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 4 posts
Rocky 23 posts
chockfull 30 posts
Nathan_Jr 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 5 2024
20 posts
Jan 3 2024
10 posts
Dec 31 2023
7 posts
Jan 1 2024
6 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
That is quite a website. It looks like a similar layout for a number of different cults. I have no idea who put it up. It looks like it was done with a bot or LLM tool. For every claim they st
oldiesman
This one was easy for me: "The Way reportedly teaches that members will suffer harm or death if they go into debt" Here's one from me: "The Way reportedly teaches that members will
chockfull
I can see the court interaction now. “That site is inaccurate and slanderous”. Judge: “Every statement on the website has a footnoted source. Which is more than you can say for your
Posted Images
chockfull
No I was delving into what you understand about AI since you now have it personified and identified wrongfully as the author of the cult facts website.
As usual you pontificate off the top of your head then refuse to own anything you say.
This is about facts not whether someone agrees with you or not.
Its amazing how even facts get twisted up when people are involved in cults.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Just trying to confirm the position that you are waffling on.
You stated the cult facts website had exaggerated claims. I was just asking what exactly you felt they were.
Waffle on. Happy new year
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Facts according to whom?
Just because YOU claim something is a fact?
As the saying goes, who died and made you God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I see. So you can spread an opinion that bolsters TWI and spreads doubt about the facts in a website labeled “cult facts” but anybody questioning your doubt of the facts gets accused of a God complex?
Sounds like you have some issues to sort through. I’m not arguing with you about your delusions.
Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources.
This stands in direct opposition to TWI who obscure and hide facts about their past to include sexual manipulation and finance manipulation lawsuits.
Pick a side or get a sore crotch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Wow. "Sounds like you have some issues to sort through." How is that NOT a demonstration of projection?
"I’m not arguing with you about your delusions." Oh, really? MY delusions?
"Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources" Have you ever taken any courses or done any reading on the subject of logic, logical fallacies, or critical thinking/analysis? This might be a good time to start doing so.
So, any presentation of claims, as long as neatly formatted and accompanied by "any ol' someone's written statement (footnotes, bibliography, etc.) attesting to the veracity of those claims" automatically qualifies that presentation as factual?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It is an observation about your approach to the cult facts website where you like to label facts as something to ignore that robots made up. (paraphrase of you) since the observation is of your behavior not mine it is illogical to call it projection.
Yes. Your delusions. I tend to call facts facts as opposed to something to ignore that robots made up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Your private interpretation of what I wrote about the cult facts website.
When you write "where you like to label..." what Chockfull claims are, without making clear how/why s/he characterizes said claims as facts...," action(s) are most probably projection.
I acknowledge that by directly pointing out what you said is dubious, I am inviting you, unfortunately not to a discussion of disagreement but to most likely inviting you to defend your claims.
That's, to me, unfortunate. What I'm NOT doing, is characterizing YOU.
And I'm NOT prescribing what I believe you SHOULD do... about anything.
You are who and what you are and what you want to be.
IF I were to invite you to discuss particular disagreement about it, I would ask you to define the parameters of this phenomenon you claim is FACT.
Is it solely that some entity (could be human intelligence or artificial intelligence) has a source outside of itself to point to as a source? Or is it important for the source to be determined as authoritative?
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And now you are babbling. That is your “projection”.
And deflecting from answering a simple question - “what facts from cult facts do you disagree with or consider exaggerated?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Again, who died and made you god?
Put another way, what makes you think I am required to comply with your demands?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Did YOU initiate this thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Whose brain died and made you post babbling nonsense?
Put another way how paranoid do you have to be to consider a question clarifying one of your babbling posts to be “demands”?
Feel free to not answer any questions directed at you and to post more nonsense. Oh wait you don’t need instructions to do that you do it 2x more than anyone else ever has on this site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No but I’m gonna see your “keys to life” on every thread regardless of who initiates it. Whether I want to or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Gosh, I hope you're mood lifts soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Clueless deflection completely unaware of negative impact of actions and blaming it on my supposed “mood”.
Coincidentally this mirrors the complete lack of awareness and ownership of words and actions of TWI leadership even though I don’t think this individual was involved in TWI leadership.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Gosh, who would guess that wishing someone well could warrant such a response?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Gosh who would guess playing dumb, dodging questions about what you write, and gaslighting people about their supposed mood could possibly make you unpopular?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Okay, you don't like me. I accept that. Why, again, would you EXPECT (even if not demanding) me to do anything other than decline to respond to your questions?
How does your insulting commenting pose anything that a reasonable person would expect me to respond to?
Put another way, why do you think it is acceptable for you to hijack my thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Why would you possibly think that someone asking you to clarify a post is hijacking your thread? Maybe your response to the question of “who died and made you God?” sounds more like you are hijacking your own thread with personal attacks.
Certainly your vehement insistence on not answering any questions about what you post could hijack a thread.
Look in the mirror for your hijacking culprit.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You can have the last word. I disagree with you, but you get/got to have your say on my thread. Congrats.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
He says as he types in one more “last word” response.
Can you not see the contradiction between your words and actions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For the sake of this post, pretend I am using the modcat profile. I'm too lazy to switch over.
Rocky, Chockfull, you've spent two pages and heaven knows how many hours arguing over literally nothing. Nothing. You don't disagree on the basics. You're arguing over the potential for inaccuracy in AI?
Are you serious?
We agree on the original post and its application to TWI. But because AI is not a perfect technology, we're going to waste pixels and emotional energy?
I think you guys worship a non-existent God and you (not you, being generic here) lie to yourselves about His alleged intervention in your life, and you are nicer to ME than you are to each other about this non-issue. PLEASE. Find something fun to argue about. Like Speaking Hypothetically In Tongues.
Basta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Can AI Speak in Tongues?
(hypothetically speaking)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not sure that AI can S.H.I.T., but it's worth exploring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Whatever. I’m just asking what he finds inaccurate about the claims on the site.
We haven’t even got to discussing limitations of AI because of all the dancing and deflection and name calling and asking whether I’m God or not.
Yes I’m not dropping it and continuing to answer. I have no idea whether the argument is over nothing or it actually has elements that can be addressed.
Sadly it’s unlikely I’ll ever know that due to all the drama and deflection.
You get more civil treatment because although your position is opposite you don’t engage in all the other nonsense deflecting questions personally attacking and asking if someone is God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.