I've made a defending criticism here to some guy who always cause drama on other people on a site called DeviantArt..
I already posted this via request:
http://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-funnel-of-nonsense.html
And of course, the guy continues to feed off to watchers just to make sure (by delusions) that 'wwwarea' is looked at as "bad" for doing things that aren't even wrong.
Here is the moronic journal: http://funnelvortex.deviantart.com/journal/wwwarea-doesn-t-give-up-does-he-568052169
This guy just won't give up.
So this request looks to be a huge one..
Who will break?
Also, I will also paste a message close to the last prt of this article:
"This guy just won't stop would he?
I know this article is very long, but funnel is no different."
===================
Note: The ones with '<MINE' or '<MY MOCK QUOTE' are stuff I
said, but the text after still being within the quote isn't mine.
<HIS is referring to quotes before I put '<MINE' after.
That's your title? Really? That really makes no sense.
You could have said something more witty like "Sucked Into the Vortex of Nonsense"
I decided to joke about the first name, not the second part. A funnel is a tube right? That was part of your pseudonym, so it was a fair title. :)
Why? Because of the "stalkers?"
Quit trying to pretend you are "not" stalkers. According to
this, you are. Want to know more?
This journal will help.
Oh, and not just because of stalkers, but that the blog doesn't look that healthy as it was before.
I already have another blog out there somewhere that may focus on more general things? <MINE
You have two others if I recall.
What, you mean that strange 'Banjo' blog?
That's not mine.. No wait, you may think it is because of that username, well honestly, I have a story about that username that you may not even believe. But it's not my blog.
The other one? What other one?
I mean I DO have another one, but you don't know it.
Plus, I can request to break the URLs you know, though I don't know if that request will be accepted.
However, that blog had an old username as a title. So it may get changed anyway.
Well, this asshole who always does what cyberbullies do (According to
the legal examples, etc) has once again done it for the purpose of pain
(Well kinda) and more idiotic being forced and pored on to the sheep of
other people.
www.deviantart.com/journal/Ano…
^MINE
So what you are saying is that I am doing this to hurt myself and to put pores in people's sheep.
You may want to double check your wording, just a suggestion.
Ever heard of 'Emotional Abuse' or the 'effects of slander', 'cyberbullying', etc?
Well you haven't blocked Jared yet. And if you have it took you a
long time do so. Are you sure you just don't have people on your list
that are a higher priority to you?
Umm, you sure about that?
And they are not "higher priority".
It's not respect man.. <MINE
Well, I tried to unblock you and talk to you directly but you blocked me.
No, I blocked you
after you made that journal.
Hmm you know? That could be a good point, damn things keep distracting me.. <MINE
Like
what? What can be going on in your life that is holding you from moving
to another account. It isn't that hard, it only takes 5 minutes to set
up.
It's not that simple. Also, the account is already made, but I still need to do some job first on this account.
We monitor you because we are concerned with
you behavior, Jesse. People used to monitor me too when I was a huge
idiot when I first joined DA. And do you know what? Getting criticized
and called out for your behavior is a GOOD THING. I used to be a fucking
retard before I was criticized and monitored by other DA users.
And
if anyone wants to know just how stupid I was, my former DA account was
Vierzbanator. I am not going to be a wuss and deny my inexcusable
behavior. I grew up. The flak I received from the DA community actually
helped! That is why we do what we do, Jesse. <HIS
Not an excuse. Every bully has an opinion to do what is considered bullying. <MINE
It isn't bullying, Jesse. Peer pressure is often a good thing.
Stop making excuses, that's exactly what cyberbullying and cyberstalking means. What you are doing is NOT a good thing. It's pure individual abuse. You are doing that for your ignorant selfish bigoted beliefs about me, nothing more.
It's nothing but abuse.
Plus, it's not always a good thing, and what you do, is obviously not on the good side.
You do realize that what you are doing is very tied to what cyberbullies do right?
And wow, kind of sad (or who knows..) of you to give in to people who 'makes you do what they want' (EXACTLY what bullying means). <MINE
If
I had continued to behave like that chances are I wouldn't have been
able to make it to college or hold a job. There is a
reason certain behavior is not acceptable in our society.
You do realize there are other ways right? It's still bullying, period.
And society is shitty, there is a reason why smart people who question society finds it horrible right?
Just because "society" doesn't accept it doesn't mean they are right.
Again, stop depending on populiar opinion.
One time homosexuality was not considered accepted behavior for a 'reason'.
Sorry but that depends. Because your "criticism" isn't criticism. It's
rotten behavior that's just forcing people to believe that it's "bad"
behavior. Like I said, bullies like you will have twisted up opinions. <MINE
It
is bad behavior, Jesse. Act like that in public I doubt many will want
to be friends with you. You really are making people mad at you by
acting the way you do online, even.
It's not bad behavior, just because others find it a problem, doesn't mean it's a problem.
Stop fucking depending on populairty.
I would rather have good rare friends who aren't fucking generic beer drinking dicks who bash furries, etc.
The only bad behavior is yours, and other people who treats me like an "asshole" just because they don't like it when I am expressing myself differently.
The only bad behavior that's happening is you. <MINE
Oh really? Did I
track down someone's home address? Did I blackmail people? Did I send
death threats to people? NO! That was all you, Jesse!
In fact, that behavior is more in the definition of bullying than any of the things me, Peter, LMJ, JMK, or Jared have done!
Oh really? Did I agree to track wwwarea's life? Did I advocated suicide, did I bash fetishes and people, did I stalk and posted links to FB, did I made a journal with a link leading to a guy with a link to illegal porn, etc?
Did I slander wwwarea by claiming he "wants" to "kill" people, did I slander wwwarea by claiming he judges heterosexuals like a real heterophobia? Did I break DA rules against wwwarea like 4-5 times, did I break other rules? Did I lie about deals, starts fights with people, etc?
So much..
Yet, what I did wasn't illegal, and you do realize, that ALL of you are extremely guilty.
Yet, what I did was not only not illegal, but I didn't start it.
Maybe I will keep monitoring you until you stop monitoring me. <MINE
Then stop acting like a child! A lot of people on DeviantART are getting sick of playing Daycare with you!
Stop being a fucking bully. You choose (and so does your shitty friends) to stalk/monitor me. It's not my fault. It's yours.
Stop fucking victim blaming.
Well still grow up (Or I am curious what your old behavior was? I bet it
was just some fetishes you had that wasn't even wrong, then people
force you to believe that being yourself was "bad". Just a feeling. <MINE
So you claim that I was "brainwashed?"
Pretty much. You were not only told to hide yourself for bullies, but you are inspired by bullies because you are proud of what you did to yourself, taking inspired to harm further people.
You are not helping, all you are doing is cyberbullying those for things NOT WRONG. <MINE
A lot of the things you have done are wrong, Jesse!
Then I will decide heterosexual is wrong then.
In all seriousness,
here is what ISN'T wrong:
- Spiritual beliefs
- The right to disagree and argue
- The right to express wet-dreams in places that allow it
- The right to be yourself
- Any victimless activity
- The right to have an opinion on anything taboo
- The right to stand up for others
- The right to forgive bad actions and defend those people while forgiving them
- The right to research and share it
- The right to have an opinion about Copyright
- The right to share the fact that all animals are equel
- The right to bring out behavior that already starts it with me
- Any sexuality, including fetishes (Don't hurt anyone with it)
- etc
Just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
But YOU on the other hand. You have done so much wrong things.
You bully those for things that is a right, bully those who makes stamps for opinions, promote cyberbullying articles, stalk people, etc.
What kind of SICK and TWISTED person are you?
Also, just in case, Law =/= Right and Wrong.
Though everything I shown wasn't even illegal anyway.
But you on the other hand is very questionable.
As I explained before, you've blackmailed, sent death threats, and tracked down someone's home address!
For the 1,000,000 th time. WHAT I DID WASN'T ILLEGAL.
I ALREADY SAID WHY.
So stop slandering me.
Plus, it remains that if you say that it's wrong anyway, you are just deciding that it's "wrong" just because.
Tracking a house is not illegal unless you publicly share it.
Blackmailing is illegal for money and/or other certain requirements.
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
And that is the exact thing you've been doing to Peter! If anything, you are the bully here.
Guess who is the guy that came first though? That would be Peter.
The only thing I am doing is making him stop abusing me.
That's JUSTICE. Standing up for yourself and telling the bully stop isn't bullying, it's justice.
Yet, way to ignore the fact that you are a bully yourself, making me do things I refuse to do.
No I'm not.. Oh wait, maybe to bullies like you, but not to good people like me. <MINE
Good person? Yeah, so the stuff above never happened.
Oh you mean the things I did that wasn't even illegal? or Wrong?
Yet, as for real mistakes (Like very old now), you got to know that everybody makes mistakes, (and you are proud of your own mistakes though). If I regret, I regret that old time, so drop it.
Though you were probably just speaking about the two things.
It's my journal buddy. I didn't even went into the commentary part yet. <MINE
And you never bring him up in the commentary.
Umm did you even read this right? That was outside the commentary. People can make some "off" topic stuff before making one.. Or after making it.
"Me" is a pronoun. "Why" is at the beginning of the sentence. "And"
and "Are" are normally not capitalized in a formal paper. But we are not
writing a formal paper. Yes, I made a grammar error, but it is still an
improvement over your original title. And for every grammar mistake I
make, you make ten of them. I just never bothered to bring them up until
now.
Give me a source. Plus, it's still not an excuse for the 'And' and 'Are'. It's still a title, and that's that. Doesn't matter what style it is after, silly.
And how? Maybe it's even.
Oh and I already know you can capitalize at the start.
Common mistake, not much of a fail. When people can not tell what you are trying to say, then we have a "really failed" case.
Still a mistake, popularity (Guys, take a drink every time Funnel depends on anything involving 'lot's of people'/popularity') doesn't cut it.
Yet, I believe you did a really fail mistake.
What comments? Oh you mean the ones you tried to get your friends to
stalk and promote even more cyberbullying idiotic arguments for sheep to
agree to?
The way you try to expose my arguments (And my arguments are fine actually) is a promotion of stalking and cyberbullying. <MINE
If
your arguments are fine and sound, then why do you hide them? Are you
afraid that they may just not happen to be sound arguments and that
someone may challenge them?
I just told you why. Because of certain people like you who likes to mock, humiliate, etc. just because of your horrid beliefs with it. Again, stop victim blaming.
Religion
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or groupwww.merriam-webster.com/dictio…And that is only a basic definition. Religions can be much more complex, and there is the legal issue as well.
And
the last definition is not the definition we are exactly discussing,
even then there is a point it has to reach before it can be called a
"religion." The Kopimi cult would be an example. <HIS
Actually it does fit well.
The Kopimi freedom 'religion' has a general idea belief that is considered important.
That's exactly what Kopimi does. Just like Otherkin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missiona…
I'm pretty sure it does not require a God to consider it a religion. <MINE
Yeah, you're right! And I actually pointed this out in my argument.
But there is a criteria it must meet before becoming a religion. Simply
taking a stance on something is not a religion. But it seems you always
refer to everything you do not like as a "religion" as if it were some overly-dedicated cult.
I don't think that's true. Then again, Kopimi might have criterias. If it judges Copyright, shows the arguments of nature and copying, then that's enough to be a religion.
Otherkin.. you know, that sounds more like a spiritual belief rather than a cult.
Yet I find it funny of you to try to use "my bible" when the "bible"
also said that what you do is considered cyberbullying and maybe even
cyberstalking.
Don't get what I mean.. In other words: The dictionary. <MINE
Did I bring that up even once in this commentary?
Umm.. Yes you did, remember that dictionary involving religion?
And remember the arguments about cyberbullying?
Also, that definition could of been based off something older. I also found this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
LOOK AT 'NOTE 1' <MINE
I am pretty sure it is up to date.
So.. you are saying that the dictionary can be
changed. I see..
I wonder why it changes? Perhaps because of what people do?
Only by idiots like you.
Your argument is invalid. <MINE
Well if you want to worship infringing copyright then go ahead.
Copyright/Monopoly Infringement isn't wrong. Remember, that's just some man made monopoly law, granted for a limited of time, which was a censorship law.
Popularity is not a valid argument. <MINE
It can be depending on
what context it is used in. For example, before a scientific discovery
can be made into something that goes into the textbooks, the majority of
scientists working in that particular field have to agree with it.
You do realize that a 'scientist' is just a person right?
They all could still be wrong.
Anyone can disagree and still try. And just because some agree with you, doesn't mean they are right.
You just don't get it. It's reality that it exist as a man-made law (Not
the be confused with morality), but the ideas behind is not a reality,
but rather an illusion. <MINE
Illusion? How is it an illusion?
The illusion that information can be "property", the illusion that copying = "stealing", the illusion that downloading games you already own "harms" companies, etc.
I learned this from a good amount of criticism. It may not be THAT popular on DA, but it's still a good valid argument.
And just because it is a law doesn't mean it's not right.
Well, Copyright isn't one of the "right" ones. Yet, people keep thinking it's a "moral" thing thanks to the illusions made by the government. Copyright never existed, it's just a monopoly idea; which has actually done real wrong things such as stealing freedom of expression, etc.
Jesse just created three new terms in the same sentence! No seriously, he just made those up.
I should be saying the same thing for "wolfaboo", heterophobia, homophobia, etc.
Stop being a fucking bully.
You do realize that people are allowed to make things up in connection with other things.
Example: A 'fetishphobia' can be a fair bring up because it means being afraid of fetishes, judging it, etc. In connection to other phobias because 'phobia' means something it's self.
It's clearly no different than how your terms came up in the first place; that it was made up by individuals.. So what I'm doing is actually a normal thing. Idiot.
Though, I don't really judge heterosexuals, I only make 'then' arguments
if you keep acting like an asshole to other sexuality (e.g. "fetishes",
spiritual beliefs, etc.) <MINE
Are you trying to claim that I am a homophobe? Hahaha, no. I am not a homophobe, Jesse.
Umm did you read my examples? I am talking about "fetishes", and other stuff.
And yes, you are a 'fetishphobia', (If that term is silly, then so is homophobia, etc)
I know it's not a religion, that's a separated part. Man are you this stupid? <MINE
Separated? How is it separated? In what definition or context?
The way I talked about it was meant to be separated.
'Majority'/popularity.. is what supposed to be some kind of "value" for your argument?
In this case, yes.
Well guess what, it's not. Popularity =/= fact. Even Albert Einstein said to not depend on popularity with this interesting quote I've found.
Huh? Oh yeah *drinks*.
Except I have legitimate reasons to not like Kopimi, NALs, or
Otherkin. They generally consist of a specific type of person(s) or
promote harmful mindsets.
Heterosexuality is just a sexuality, what is the big deal over that?
No you don't. And it's funny of you to say that it's "harmful" without proof.
Yet, just because you think it's "harmful" doesnt' mean you are right. You are not other people.
Because they shouldn't judge others for being different than them.
Maybe I have a legit reason to hate Heterosexuals then because some heterosexuals has raped people. Soooo
In all seriousness, stop basing stuff on fear. That is NOT a valid excuse to hate all of them.
Just because you have some opinions to not be popular, doesn't mean all of your opinions don't depend on it.
Hell, a lot of people actually hate FNAF. <MINE
Not as many as those who like it.
Yeah but it's still a lot.
When I say 'then', it's more like a "How do you like it if I were to say
that your _insert something here_ wasn't _insert something here_?'
argument. <MINE
I do not know what you are trying to say.
Let me make an example:
"So you think and say people who sexually like robots is sick and disgusting?
How do you like it if I call your heterosexuality for humans sick and disgusting then?! I bet you would be just as upset as I am!"
However, you actually do the serious bad stuff like that without the 'how do you like it' thing. <MINE
What? What are you trying to get it.
Again, look at my example. But you actually are serious, without a 'how do you like it' part.
No, it is because I know how the world actually works. <HIS
"Because I know how it works because I said so!" < Funnel <MY MOCK QUOTE <MINE
Very mature.
Said the guy who makes journals for mocking purposes. Much of the stuff in the journal.
Plus, how is making a mock quote to make a point in criticism "immature"?
You do realized that public schools are not perfect right? Especially
since Schools used to have old outdated science theories, etc.. which is
what our current theories may be considered that too someday. <MINE
I have no idea what school system you were in, but my school system would update textbooks regularly.
Well even some current beliefs are still wrong today. So stop basing your arguments because of "I went to school!". I mean, School is a very great place to learn (maybe), but it's not perfect, not even close.
Even been criticized by a lot of people online.
I could of also sworn that public schools talked to a person by claiming
that you need money to Copyright, but that is obviously NOT true. <MINE
But it is true.
Hahaha, you are such a huge idiot. This, ladies and gentleman, is a fine example of a sheep who thinks that the schools system are "perfect".
Here is why you are wrong, Funnel:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright
exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register,
however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a
U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section
“Copyright
Registration.”
http://www.stopfakes.gov/learn-about-ip/copyrights/do-i-have-to-register
It used to be like what you said before, but then monopoly supports (Who likes to ruin our natural rights) made it automatic, without the need to pay for it. Though, you can still 'register' for further abilities, but to simply own Copyright, you don't need to pay money..
They may also teach that there is such thing as a "single normal" which again, is an illusion. <MINE
What do you mean by that. I really do not know what you are trying to say.
Meaning that for example: Having a foot 'fetish' is considered "weird" but having a highly common thing like 'kissing' or disgusting human 'intercourse' is "normal".
Or that to have a "normal" life, you have to:
1. Like beer
2. Fall in love with a random women
3. Have kids
4. Can't have any interests into video games, furries, science fiction, etc.
It's a bunch of bullshit.
I also heard criticism that public schools are for sheep, and that home schooling is far better. <MINE
Sheep? That is the word you are using?
You live in a state without any homeschooling regulations, last time I checked.
If that's true, then good. I like learning on my own, through the Internet, with google researches, learning from sites like Wikipedia, criticism (real criticism), dictionaries, history, etc.
Love it.
It made me free; that for example, I do not need money to Copyright (Sadly), that being yourself IS the 'normal' thing, learning criticism that makes me re-think of the things I was originally taught, etc.
And one thing for sure, that opinions (e.g. Reviews) are NOT facts. Unless they provide legit critique such as respecting purpose, and finding real legit flaws but that's a different kind of argument.
Yet, personal opinion from reviews are not fact. :)
And of course, the Internet (The waking world..) actually can criticized current teaching systems of our public schools system. <MINE
What are you saying, your sentences are so jumbled and messy.
Maybe we are still on that school subject, that you just keep separating systems.
I find it sad that you say that as if that was a "perfect" argument when it's not.
So try again. <MINE
Did I ever say it was?
Didn't you say "I went to school" as an excuse to argue something?
I also did a lot of reading. And since doing a lot of reading it's self
isn't value (as you can be reading nothing but junk), I say I been
reading a lot of criticism to today's popular beliefs, open theories,
etc. <MINE
I think you are the one who has been reading nothing but junk!
No I'm not. Mine is based off free open theories that effect the real world, shows the history of copyright, seeing the fact that you don't need money to own copyright (sadly), that everyone is normal for who they are, that it's possible that the world is perhaps only a dream (Criticism that questions popular belief), etc.
And just because you find it "junk", doesn't mean you are right. My side of information isn't junk, it's fact and some is open with new possibilities that escape the censorship, and other limited beliefs.
Yet, way to change the subject of your claim that "Lot's of reading = fact".
It can be if it's becoming a group of pattern beliefs with the same old delusions, etc. Which has happened. <MINE
Yes,
but I am not part of any said cult. You go around accusing people of
being part of those cults with no real basis behind your accusations.
And you call general topics "religions" because you do not like them.
No, I called them religion because it just looks like religion; pattern beliefs, cult believing, etc.
Note: Not all religion is bad.
And if you believe in Copyright, then you are part of it maybe.
Copyright laws exist for a reason. It isn't
some corporate conspiracy like you think it is. If anything our
copyright laws are too loose and weak, which is why we get (hilarious)
knockoffs and bootlegs. <HIS
Actually. Copyright was a censorship law past for a LIMITED OF TIME of about 14-30 years for market purposes, <MINE
And why shouldn't it be? It is their work.
Maybe because naturally, monopoly is a violation of real rights; freedom of expression.
Since information isn't really property, it's a cesnorship law; based off the delusion that it's "OK" to have a monopoly over the public.
then the good part comes in (Public Domain) <MINE
But since a lot of
these people are rich they can just renew it. Even after a musician or
artist dies, the copyright is held by the publishing company. And it is
for a good reason as well. It's just what we have to do to have all
the benefits of capitalism. It's just how the world works.
You can't renew it. Once it's in the public domain, Copyright expires. And for good reason.
It's not a good reason, it's a bad reason (Your claim that it's "good" to keep it trapped under monopoly). You clearly don't know how the world works, buddy. Capitalism is not a right to monopoly over other people. And it shouldn't be if it "was" considered a "right".
Though I do remember finding this one time:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/2320049908.shtml
Anyway, seeing Funnel to be part of the Copyright cult for believing that it's "good" (but it's not) just shows why more and more people need to stand up for the truth that Copyright stifles creativity.
Here's why:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/12333120767/no-copyright-is-not-human-right.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/06/business/06LEGA.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAmmtCJxJJY
But then not only that censorship got passed, but it's been highly
abused not only by it's ridiculous expansions, but people has made so
many myths (Including the term 'Intellectual Property', claims that
"piracy" is a "lost" sale, that copying is "theft" (Theft is really
about removing something), etc. <MINE
Legally those are actual problems.
But it's still myths. And the legal system isn't perfect. Not even close in the USA.
Yet, reasons are not always good.
And I'm glad they are weak. <MINE
Of course you would be.
Since it's proven that Copyright stifles creativity, and promotes real harm to harmless non-interfering expressions, I hope Copyright gets abolished.
Copyright does nothing but stifle creativity, has abused fans, promote monopoly, etc. That's the truth.
Also..
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybK…
^MINE
These
so called "victims" brought it upon themselves. And most people against
copyright are just pissed cuz they can't put popular music in
their YouTube videos.
Sorry, but it's the truth. They are victims, and Copyright violates freedom of expression because it's a man made law with an illusion (that promotes censorship) that promotes control and less freedom.
Plus, by fans, I was talking about amazing fan projects that got taken down. That is a fine example of stifling creativity.
And just because you enjoy people complaining about lack of freedom, doesn't mean you are right.
What a bad argument of your side.. as always.
Hell, even the constitution states something about Copyright, but that part is being ignored. <MINE
Where?
Let's see.
Ah yes: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/12333120767/no-copyright-is-not-human-right.shtml
"We recently discussed the common fallacy that "copyright is in the
Constitution", but that's only one example of copyright defenders
misrepresenting a document to support their cause."
"
But here's the thing: it doesn't say what copyright supporters think
it does. Not even close. Not only are they focusing on only one half of
the declaration's relevant article, and ignoring additional detail from another UN declaration that is meant to go hand-in-hand with the first... even the tiny part they focus doesn't match their position. Let's take a look.
The line in the declaration that establishes a right to some sort of intellectual property is Article 27, Section 2:
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral
and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he is the author.
Right off the bat, we see a problem: moral and material rights. The US, explicitly and intentionally (with some very minor exceptions) does not
protect the moral rights of creators—the copyright system is based
almost exclusively around economic rights. So when copyright supporters
in America cite the Declaration of Human Rights, they are in fact
pointing to a clause that the US directly violates."
Here is an interesting article:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121120/18240721105/fixing-copyright-purpose-copyright.shtml
""To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)"
is part of the constitution.
Okay, if you want to know more on why the "Observer Effect"
is not what the more extreme New Age community thinks it is, I will let
Martymer81 explain it for you. I admit I do not agree with everything he
says, but he does a good job explaining why the whole
"Quantum consciousness creates reality" thing is bullshit. <HIS
(Had a video too)
What a bunch of bullshit.
Being open minded about the experiences, and making new theories isn't abuse. <MINE
Cooking up bullshit and calling it a "quantum theory" is abuse!
Umm what? This theory connects and naturally makes people wonder about 'what is real', etc.
That's not abuse, and yet this term "abuse" you use sounds like yet, another tool to promote censorship on open minded theories.
It's experimenting, and your suggestion does nothing but promote censorship and hurts curiosity, etc. <MINE
How?
Because saying people are wrong to adapt theories and come up with possible new theories (or add to the already existing theory) based off another (e.g. Mind over matter) just because, stifles curiosity, and prevents open wonder and censorship against more evidence, experimenting, etc.
If it's abuse, then I say making a theory off of any scientific theories is abuse. <MINE
Good luck with that.
Same with you who thinks you can decide that making new theories is "abuse".
Yet, there is still further evidence about the whole 'matter over mind' theory, and etc. <MINE
Thanks for saying Matter over Mind 
I meant 'Mind over Matter'. There is evidence (and I mean a lot) that it's true.
And the problem with you is that you call those people "crazy" as if you knew everything about the 'matter' theory. But you clearly don't. As the experiment clearly shows that we don't fully know it yet.
And there isn't anything debunking those yet, or very well. <MINE
Yeah, Marty has a whole series dedicated to debunking MoM, Spirit Science, and that sort of thing.
You mean in a stupid way? It's not really good honestly. Why? Because there has been real experiences about a lot of that.
I think Spirit Science does a lot of a better job.
But that one guy isn't very good at "debunking".. Yet, I bet they are just.. analysis like he said on that video you sent me.
So just because some guy finds it bullshit, compares oddly, etc. doesn't mean it's wrong. <MINE
Marty is a science teacher. But you probably are going to say he is a tool of the school system or some crap like that.
So is Spirit Science.
But just because he is a 'science teacher' doesn't mean he's right.
In reality, science cannot disprove stuff like that and I heard that science is about being open minded, not to be a tool set for atheists to "disprove" a God for example.
In fact, a lot of scientists also believe in a possible afterlife, that dreams are other realities, etc.
Yes, they are 'scientists' too.
I already sent you links to those articles, but you ignore it just because of your closed minded crap of "NAB". Which is NOT a good excuse to discredit the whole thing. Since NA (If that's even it) can also use science to prove stuff, etc.
This term of "rape" or "abuse" is just another excuse to get away with censorship, etc. <MINE
How?
Calling new theories, and new ideas "rape" or "abuse".. is rape and abuse.
It just abuses a natural open minded system to promote more possibilities, etc.
Sorry but those so-called "loons" do count. And they are not loons. They
are just open minded people who wonders and views reality differently.
If they are "loons" for that, then you are a loon for your own spiritual
beliefs then. <MINE
By this logic, the WBC and homophobic
Christians are on the same page as sane, normal, and respectful
Christians who respect homosexuality and gay rights. Despite the fact
most Christians do not want to associate themselves with
the idiotic types.
Umm no they aren't. Because those people (WBC and homophobic Christians) did bad things. The new age people does NOTHING like that (Or at least is VERY rare if there is some bad apples here). All they do is promote new ideas about reality, makes people wonder, etc. They don't discriminate. It's VERY IDIOTIC to compare people like that to them.
And by the way, those new age people are actually pretty smart and sane. I even heard a study that conspiracy theories are more open minded than those who are against them because of the open mind of wondering, etc.
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/10/scientific-study-reveals-conspiracy-theorists-sane.html
"Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S.
and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream
media stereotypes, “conspiracy theorists” appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events."
Though, we are talking about new age people. But they have a similar mindset in terms of being open about many things possible.
Yet, there is real experiment effects such as the Law of Attraction,
Mind over Matter, etc. Hell, even I have done some interesting
experimenting effects before. <MINE
Really? Did you document it? Share it? AS IT HAPPENED?
I've had dreams that came true (I.e. Future predictions), I tried some 'beyond 5 senses' powers with 'number codes' with predicting a picture before you even see it (And got some shocking results), I've had LoA results with some tricks, etc.
As of now, I need to work on getting it to work far better.
Not just me, but I remember talking to other people who also claimed to have had shocking results with dreams (visiting another real place, etc.).
Another, the Japan Earthquake was predicted before.
Proof?
Here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2003/11/08
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/dames2.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread43183/pg1 (Some comment, I think it was the bottom)
These are articles made BEFORE it happened. I decided to try to find info after I hear claims that the Earthquake prediction was predicted.
NOTE: It wasn't 100% accurate (e.g. The date, which was learned later that mind is outside of time, but they could see ahead), but it's very important to note how close it was, and I think it would be highly unfair to discredit that part JUST because it wasn't 100% perfect (It can take practice to use these strange powers).
If you do discredit it, then that's why I am right about you preventing curiosity, and censoring new ideas.
I bet you would call me a "loon" for experimenting new theories, which
suggests that you are a loon because you force your limited unproven
beliefs as "fact". <MINE
Depends on what you actually do.
Well the stuff I'm defending isn't a loon side. Though if I had to depend on people who doesn't believe what I defend, you are on the rabid side who forces that and bully other people for any personal reason (e.g. fear).
Oh, and if I had to depend on popularity, that video I shared is more popular than the video you shared. <MINE
Yeah,
and Dutchsinse's bullshit videos about HAARP and Weather Control
conspiracy theories have a lot of likes too. But using uneducated
YouTube commenters as the context for popularity is not reliable,
however using popularity among educated experts is.
Can you prove that it's "bullshit" then? Can you actually give me concrete evidence because you enable (again) your loony self by attacking those and pretending you know everything?
Yet, that bullshit video you sent me has views too.
Umm, actually it's not because they can still be wrong. Just because you think they are "educated" doesn't mean they are, and either way, doesn't mean they are right.
ALL PEOPLE COUNT. And you can't decide that just because of 'what you think' over people not you.
If those people don't count, then the people on your video doesn't either. <MINE
YouTube commenters are not reliable as I explained.
Actually, that depends on what the comments are.
If they have good points regardless of who you think they are, then they have good points, period.
You still defeated your own point about "depending on popularity," pretty horribly I might add. <HIS
You just don't get it. <MINE
Yes I do.
Umm, no you don't. Try again.
The first part was because you SAID something involving popularity, and
the argument was directed at it (Which is different than the main
thing). The second part was that you were basing it off a 'popular'
thing. <MINE
I still can not understand you.
You claim 'it's not know to many people', then I argued that by fairly arguing based off the feedback. Yet, even a lot of other scientists know.
Note too, not all scientists are the same. They are just people like us in reality. Just like that stupid review guy that's already proven biases and unfair (which also unfairly compares to an off-topic company and acted like it's "fair" to compare to another company that had more money..
Also, just because they are considered 'scientists', doesn't mean it's automatically right.
And when they are scientists?
It's a term. A scientist is just a person who is part of the community that experiments, etc. That doesn't mean their opinions are "superior" over other people.
It can be considered a "cool" feedback, but it's not always right still.
Especially since many 'scientific' theories were proved wrong in the past.
Lot's may not believe in ghosts, but that doesn't mean they don't exist,
nor does it mean the evidence for ghosts are no longer valid.
I believe in
ghosts, Jesse. Like you I believe there are things science will never
be able to explain. But I am not going to make up a load of bullshit for
it and label it as "science".
But science can prove stuff like the whole 'mind over matter' thing, etc. It's been used for it, a lot of those articles I've sent had sources suggesting scientists also tries to use science to show evidence, etc.
And yes, open minded science is meant to have possibilities for that.
Plus, you can't prove that it's "bullshit". You clearly don't know everything, and just because your emotions don't like it, doesn't mean it is.
No. That matter experiment is an observation. Observing is seeing
something in reality. That's what the whole matter thing was about.
Another step beyond that is just more observation.
Yet, that video (Did you even see it?) was a step by step thing too. <MINE
There is also the extensive peer-reviewed post-analysis.
But in that video, it was enough as a simple experiment to go deeper on our own physical existences.
Like I said, science can be used to prove 'Mind over matter', etc.
If you claim "They are notz realz scietisz" then you are an idiot.... even more.
Which is why many of them do not take "Mind over Matter" as legitimate theory. <HIS
Just
because you depend on popularity doesn't mean you are right. That was
some people, and just because some are confused, doesn't mean it's no
longer a 'legitimate' theory. <MINE
They know more than you, Jesse.
Oh really? What kind of argument is that? Plus, I know a lot more than you. Plus, just because they know other things, doesn't mean I am wrong about the 'mind over matter' theory.
In fact, them being confused is an interesting sign to show that what we
currently believe may not be a solid concrete fact (The what is matter,
etc. which can naturally lead to the 'mind over matter' idea. <MINE
Tell me how many physicists buy into it.
*Drinks*
(Stop depending on popularity, just because doesn't believe in that doesn't mean they are right. Yet, it confused MANY physicists for your information.)
Even Albert Einstein doesn't believe that 'matter' is real, but it is energy. <MINE
Einstein was wrong about a lot of things.
Umm. How?
Just because some popular people ignore him, doesn't mean he's wrong. He actually makes a lot of good points, and makes us wonder. Many people consider him, etc.
And just because you hate seeing that doesn't mean he's wrong.
http://www.lifetrainings.com/We-are-made-of-Energy-not-Matter.html
"Quantum physics says that as you go deeper and deeper into the workings
of the atom, you see that there is nothing there – just energy waves. It
says an atom is actually an invisible force field, a kind of miniature
tornado, which emits waves of electrical energy."
Seeing stuff naturally match with Albert Einstein isn't that surprising.
Yet, where is YOUR proof that it's "matter over mind"? We fully don't
even know matter (Proven by that experiment, etc). <Keep that in
mind. <MINE
Refer again to Marty's videos. He is better explaining it than I am, really.
Maybe Marty isn't right? Maybe I already explained why that video is somewhat bullshit? (I have to give credit, it's just an analyzes according to him?)
Only one type of "solid" exist. There is no good evidence that their is other.
There are many theories. But some can easily be written off. <HIS
Proof please? <MINE
I can't unless you bring up a specific theory.
Matter isn't real, only energy
Law of Attraction
Dreams being connected
Spiritual world being anything you want and not only by your limited views to other people
etc.
Obviously you don't know the spiritual world, and the same applies to the other.
There is so much evidence for the main 3.
Look at the links I provided, and actually look at them instead of yelling "NEZ AGEZ BULLSHIZZZ".
Yet, the 'mind over matter' is still an interesting theory, which has also had been connected to more evidence too. <MINE
You mean evidence that doesn't exist or was misinterpreted?
I don't think it's 'misinterpreted'. Especially since there is evidence.
Which by the way, you call "crazy" when in reality, this is considered a really interesting theory. <MINE
No it isn't. Really.
Since this is a depending on people one, I will argue this:
I believe over 1,000,000 people consider it interesting. Some scientists consider it interesting, including others.
So don't decide that it's not and not count those people.
Let me guess, you think that's "bullshit" too. And if anyone beliefs it
with their own opinion, you are going to call them "loons" right?
What a surprise. >_>
And yes, if it has good connections, then yes it's a legit theory.
You don't have a right to decide what is "legit" or not. Seriously, how bigoted can you be?
That's right! Jesse actually believes in Ancient Aliens!
That's right! Funnel has no fucking tolerance to those who has a different opinion about subjects like this. A person who accepts open minded theories with the connections to history.
This is why you are nothing but a bully Funnel. Calling people loons for having a new history involving history JUST because you find it "crazy". This is why you are a loon funnel.
Not a person who is open to sees history on a different approach.
Just shows why you are sheep, or else when questioned, you attack them.
You do NOT know our own history, so don't act like you fucking know. While at the same time, there is evidence of ancient aliens. Yes,
evidence > random opinion.
I'm also going to guess that you idiotically believe that aliens don't exist.
It's not because they have a different opinion, it is when
their opinions and attitude are potentially dangerous. Take Alternative
Medicine for example. It is the exact same thing as faith healing. And
do you know what happens when people rely on Alternate Medicine and
Faith Healing instead of a real doctor? People. Fucking. Die! <HIS
Bullshit.
It's not dangerous to have it. And even if it "was", it's still an
opinion, and the way you behave at people who just spread the word for
people to believe in their OWN LIFE not yours, you still do not respect
it. <MINE
It is dangerous! Not only that, but it also promotes a harmful, self-centered, lazy mindset!
Sorry but it's not dangerious. And just because you think it's "self-centered" or "lazy" doesn't mean you are right.
YOU. HAVE. NO. REASON. TO. BULLY. THOSE. WHO. HAS. DIFFERENT. BELIEFS.
What the flying FUCK is wrong with you?
Maybe I should bully you for being a heterosexual because of risks then!
Again, people have a right to have different beliefs and opinions and you have NO RIGHT to attack those with it or define them as "dangerous".
In fact, every belief is dangerous and you have done dangerous stuff before with me.
Maybe it's dangerous to believe that 'matter over mind' is real then.
<NOTE, look closer, I'm saying 'matter over mind', not 'mind over
matter' for this part.
Matter over Mind gave us modern medicine.
And maybe in a way, it was possible for another thing, but people were still stupid to not know how.
Also, people who are different than you isn't stopping you from making it.
It's like calling people "dangerous" for choosing to not be a doctor.
There was a case in my area (the Wausau area) that happened a few years ago where a girl died because her parents decide to do Faith Healing. She is fucking dead! New Age alternative medicine is the exact same thing as Faith Healing, just reskinned!
Read the story here
And for deaths of people who tried alternative medicine, there are quite a few on this list.
This is why I take this shit so seriously! <HIS
I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't excuse your attitude because: <MINE
I think it justifies it completely.
No it doesn't. It doesn't justify to fucking stereotype people because of one or some more bad apples.
If I had a child and had issues that were considered to be hospitalized, I would take the person to the hospital. And guess what? I still believe what you think is "dangerous".
You have no excuse to bully those who has a different opinion. Get over it you man child.
1. Not all people who believes in 'Mind over Matter' will do this.
Example: I believe it, but I wouldn't do that due to unsure, etc. <MINE
I know that, that's why I stated not every New Ager is an NAL.
Then why the fuck are you calling a lot of those "loons" who don't even do that shit?
Why are you calling me a "loon", etc? And no; JUST because a crazy (A real one) does that with a belief, doesn't mean it's bad for someone to have the same belief it's self. Just like how a fetish it's self is not the blame,
but the lack of control is.
Stop blaming calling beliefs "wrong" just because of certain people.
2. Since when does this concern with so-called "new-age" people? That sounds like one of those christian issues. <MINE
How is alternative medicine any different than Faith Healing? And did you look at the second link?
It's not bad to try 'Faith Healing' it's self. There IS cases where it can work (Though I still need to search this one up, because like I said, I get skeptical sometimes). Sometimes if it's impossible to find a hospital, etc. (I.e. No way for 'modern medicine' to help), what's the other option? It's not like it hurts to try in situations like that.
Or if it's just a minor thing that can heal on it's self, it doesn't hurt to try too.
Especially if I'm doing this on my OWN body. If I don't want to be hospitalized, and wanted to do that instead, well, it's my body.
3. You do realize that people within possible Christianity has had cases like this right? <MINE
Yeah? <HIS
Are you going to suggest that ALL Christianity is bad now just because of a couple of bad apples in it? <MINE
No, I never said that.
Then why do you call many people "loons" that DOESN'T do that then?
I do not think I need to address this, because
often people are wrong and deny it. And what I posted above shows what
can happen when they are wrong. <HIS
Sorry but there is a lot of
evidence for my side, and you always deny it and act like they are
"wrong" and then pretend your little to no debunking side is "stronger"
all of a sudden. <MINE
What EVIDENCE?
The evidence that YOU IGNORE. And in denial out of your bullshit opinions.
Because I find things funny <HIS
Well it's not funny to me. <MINE
Then you would hate South Park.
That's just a joke show right? Though I kinda hate it but does it serve your argument?
Your reasoning is more serious rather than a joke.
You don't know that. It's still a theory because it came from a lot of
those scientific experiments, and observations, etc. It's a theory. Get
over it. <MINE
Not a good theory
Actually it is a good theory.
Yet a lot of those books can contain things that actually happened with people. <MINE
I'm sure there are other explanations.
Oh you mean the so-called "science" as you call it that tries to debunk things that can be proven by open minded science?
Pretty sure seeing an experience based off a dream connected to an event that never happened yet and happened exactly after the dream is a very good point for a theory.
Im not doing it solely for my friends. <HIS
You are uploading the journal for your watchers. If you were alone on DA with no watchers, I bet you wouldn't do it.
Funny to ignore the other part of that commentary by the way. <MINE
Well you hide your comments as well, so...
I was talking about the quote I made when you were replying to it.
And again.. way to ignore my yet, another part I brought out.
Also: It's "I'm".
Just because you have a reason, doesn't mean you are right. Reasons are not always right. <MINE
But my reasons are right!
Stop acting like a bigot.
But I do have a good reason to call you out though. <MINE
Why?
Because you bully those with different opinions and even admitted it with a stupid idiotic reason that's fear-based, and possibly for other bigoted reasoning.
You also admitted to monitoring me and even tried to justified that too with more idiotic reasoning to excuse you to do that harm to other people.
And of course, many other good reasons to call you out.
Oh really? I do not think that low sounding quality video will debunk it. <MINE
It was one of his earlier videos.
Whatever. But when I watch it, it didn't sound like a debunking video as he said it's an analyzes. Even if it is, I don't see any good reasoning that suggests very good evidence.
But it is concrete that we don't fully understand "matter".
"This video is meant to only be an analysis" <The video you shown me.
Sorry but this video isn't very great. I think this video actually doesn't understand it at all. <MINE
I think he does.
K.
It does not explain why some of that matter somehow changes when observe, etc. <MINE
It doesn't change.
But according to the experimental video I've shown you, it does.
The particles (The same exact particles) has done different behaviors depending on the observer.
I don't need to link because I already did (It's that video I have sent you).
I'm curious, did you even watch the whole video?
Even Albert Einstein said that matter isn't real, but it is energy. <MINE
Einstein was wrong too you know.
But he's not wrong.
The guy in the video isn't going deep enough. Hell, it's not even a scientific experiment and could be pseudoscience it's self. <MINE
He described the layout of an experiment clearly.
Describing an experiment =/= experimenting. It sounds more like an opinion about it.
If I had to see a good true debunking video, there would be a clear (If it even does exist) explanation to the main part of the split experiment in a negative way. Explaining the observer part, etc.. But how is that possible? Haha
The most interesting thing about the whole matter thing is that things
only come when it's measured, and a certain pattern of quantum/matter
(There is only one) forms when observed, thus, naturally the 'mind over
matter' theory forms. It's a very shocking experiment, showing that
maybe everything is just tied to beliefs and mind, and the very basic
experiment tries to expose it, probably because somewhere in our belief
system, is weak and see through, which then possibly creates this result
deep down too.
Think about it.. Why does quantum "matter" forms in a
old belief predictable pattern if we try to observe it close, but when
we don't observe closely, it forms randomly? <MINE
No, it is because
to measure something, you have to interact with it! There is no way you
can measure it if you do not interact with it!
But creating the splits is part of interacting with it.
That part is already done, then we observe the experiment. Yet, observing is kinda an interaction and either way, is still an important part.
Trying to 'observe' creates more possible beliefs, effecting the result.
But if we ignore it, it somehow effects it differently..
That's one of the most interesting things to think about and naturally makes people wonder about this whole reality. <MINE
Will not even bother.
Of course you won't. You can't stand the high amount of criticism toward your claims.
Look at this:
projectavalon.net/forum4/showt…
"Niels
Bohr, a Danish Physicist who made significant contributions to
understanding atomic structure and quantum theory once said: if quantum
mechanics hasnt profoundly shocked you, you havent understood it yet.
Quantum physics has left scientists all over the world baffled,
especially with the discovery that our physical material reality, isnt
really physical at all. Everything we call real is made of things that
cannot be regarded as real. It seems philosophers of our ancient past
were right, our senses really do deceive us."
Later part:
"At
the turn of the ninetieth century, physicists started to explore the
relationship between energy and the structure of matter. In doing so,
the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe that was at the
very heart of scientific knowing was dropped, and the realization that
matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. Scientists began to
recognize that everything in the Universe is made out of energy." <MINE AS IN I QUOTED THIS
My reaction to that article:
*Immaturely shows a reaction video* <My edit
This is why you can't debate.
But seriously, I know what the fuck "that" is. Misinformation and lies!
Oh yeah, and Project Avalon is a New Age site. Try going to more credible sources.
No it's not. It's a natural connection to it, and umm, just because it's a 'New Age' site to you, DOESN'T mean it's automatically wrong.
You have to know that they are people too, and that it doesn't matter what they have to you, it's still people arguing and debating, etc.
No, it's because I am aware of what can happen when people are too driven into their beliefs. <HIS
The only problem with that is you.
You
don't know if their beliefs are "wrong", but you act like they "are" as
if you knew everything and call them "crazy" just for adapting a
belief.
This is no different than believing in a God. Though, it's kinda like that. <MINE
It's not that they believe in something, it is to what extent and how they go about it.
Well guess what? They are not going far. People are allowed to come up with new beliefs (or old ones) and go further off of that? It's like making a theory off a theory sort of.
And for example: Theory: If the spiritual world means anything you want, then it means anything.
You never admitted it, but you still do what you can't admit. <MINE
Sounds like someone else.
Stop hiding it. You already been debunked and exposed several times.
So I am a psycho? No no no. Stating my concern is not a real psycho. <HIS
1.
You call others "goons" for having a belief system, new open theories,
etc. as if it's "wrong" or other negative name to do that. <MINE
There is a difference between a new theory and pulling something out of your ass.
1. It's not made up in a off topic form, and 2. Theories is about combing ideas based off observation or other theories. That's what I do, and what they do, etc.
And no, there is no "misconceptions".
2. You cyberbully those who expresses themselves. (E.g. Those who may
actually be otherkin, etc. And no, they are not crazy because... what if
they were right? They they have a right to have faith into what could
be true. Just like having a God belief.) <MINE
It is a lot more
stupid. Especially when they run out in public acting like a wolf with a
tail pinned on resulting in people thinking that they escaped from a
mental asylum.
And how is it "stupid"? You do not know what is on the otherside, so acting like you know everything when you don't, makes you the stupid one.
Ever heard of pretending with spirituality? (Or hell, just practice before something else, or even hell. just pretending).
Whatever reasoning you have there, is incredibly biased and actually the stupid one, and since you based off what people feel (Not a real argument).
3. You always claim it's "bullsh**" over and over again without good
proof, or force that with only a small theory (But it's only a theory)
that it's wrong. <MINE
No, wwwarea. "Wrong" is a result. A conclusion, not a theory.
Making a "conclusion" that it's "wrong" without concrete evidence is based off a theory, and shows how bigoted you are.
Face it, you don't know anything.
And not only that, but you are just exposing more of yourself that you are just a bully.
Scientists do not control physics. <HIS
You sure about that? Scientists has always messed with a lot of energy things all the time.
They even controlled it, made new theories about it, etc. <MINE
In
those cases they work with physics, not control them. Scientists do not
dictate how the world works, but they do have a better understanding of
it as a whole than either of us do.
Some of them does. But sometimes they don't, and how do you know?
Yet, there is evidence that energy can be controlled to.
No different than a lot of new age people. <MINE
How?
Are you suggesting that those people can control energy? That sounds really awesome actually.
But theory wise, it's no different.
If you mean another kind of thing, well the theory states that mind does. <MINE
What does that even mean?
The theory that mind creates reality, which has evidence, etc.
And if they are wrong. <HIS
Or if they are right. - Also your quote reminds me of example 3.. <MINE
If they really are wrong?
And if they really are right?
Again, stop acting like only one side needs evidence.
I do not trust the media <HIS
Do you even know what the media is? I believe it's anyone who is part of the media. <MINE
Even FOX News and MSNBC.
Including individuals who is part of social communities as a group.
If you mean 'main media', I believe you do. A lot of main media could accept your forcing bigotry down other people. <MINE
Actually you would be at home on MSNBC.
I don't even know what that is. But whatever it is, your reasoning is idiotic as usual.
Because it is not an open theory. <HIS
Actually
it is. Open theory means being open to what's possible with something
that can naturally make people wonder. Mind over matter is an open
theory, and lets people freely think about it.
Don't decide that it's not open. <MINE
Well, it isn't open because scientists don't agree with it.
*Drinks*
Just because many scientists don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's not open anymore.
Scientists are just people, and they are not always right.
It's still open because by definition, they are.
Yet, either way, you still failed to prove that it's "wrong" and refused
to link, etc. and only depend on your own limited beliefs. <MINE
Once again, refer to Marty's videos. He is better at this quantum stuff than I am and he does provide a lot of links.
One guy that isn't so great isn't very great. At least I send a lot more, etc. And yes, they do count, it doesn't matter of your discrimination reasoning to 'what type of people' they are.
And so does my links, I mean I'm pretty sure they connect with a lot of sources, etc.
Not true. <HIS
1. You always say
"bullshit" to so-called "new-age" articles when yet, they are good
theories based off evidence, experiences, etc. without any good reason. <MINE
You can not trust everything you see online.
Same with you.
But for these, I observed that these had experiences, especially the fact that even my own personal experiments were more tied to them.
Example: Remember the lottery thing? That's good. But if we need to ask for proof, that may be easy to do for that one.
2. You participate into ED, and mock and humiliate me for having my own spiritual beliefs. <MINE
If you hadn't behaved the way you have you wouldn't have gotten that article in the first place.
Sorry, but victim blaming doesn't help your arguments. It's clearly their own fault for CHOOSING to do that to people just because they hate it when someone stands up for freedom.
Again, way to ignore the fact that you did mock, and way to admit that you did this:
"It's your fault you made me mock you!!"
Folks, this is Funnel. A guy who is not only a liar, a hypocrite, but is just plain awful.
You are a horrible liar. <MINE
No, Jesse. The people who take advantage of NALs are horrible liars.
No you are. And do you even know what being a 'liar' mean?
Those new age "loonies" are not lying. They (in general) are providing what they think, etc.
Like any person in the world that is at least basic in general.
Sounds more like you. <HIS
No, it's you.
I've sent you this before, but I guess (I'm wouldn't be surprised either) you ignored it:
questioncopyright.org/promise
^MINE
An anti-copyright site. Why am I not surprised?
Wow. See, once again,
this is why you can't debate. You ignore the criticism, JUST because it's an 'anti-copyright' site.
Just shows why you can't listen to criticism, and leads you back to the same old belief system.
Actually I do. <HIS
Judging by your lies, and other history, you don't. <MINE
Other history?
Your bullying past is one example.
And so far I haven't humiliated anyone either. You only humiliate yourself. <HIS
Again, more lies. And victim blaming. <MINE
Dude, your "Mind Over Matter" thing promotes victim blaming.
What kind of idiotic argument is that?
Stop hiding the fact that you are at fault for choosing to do this to people, for having a different viewpoint on reality.
Shows why you don't deserve respect.
When my feelings are invoked by people actually dying, then yes. Because the shit is dangerous! <HIS
FEAR =/= Fact
And
just because there exist a few bad apples (Hell, does it even exist
with what I'm trying to argue for?) doesn't mean the theory is wrong.
Just because you have a fear with some people, doesn't mean your opinion
is "fact" now. <MINE
Actually its a legitimate concern
No it's not. It's not a "legitimate" concern to blame the whole tree just for having a couple of 'bad apples'.
Maybe I should blame heterosexual because SOME people with the same sexuality has raped people.
That's a fair connection to what you're doing.
And it's not dangerous because it's rare. <MINE
How is it not dangerous?
Believing in God is "dangerous", being a 'heterosexual' is "dangerous", being a 'homosexual' is "dangerous", driving a car is "dangerous", owning a gun is "dangerous",
and the list goes on.
Having a belief (what you are addressing) is no riskier than all of what I listed (Well I mean that depends). In fact, the beliefs I'm defending isn't even as risky as being a heterosexual or homosexual. Especially driving a car.
But you want to know what's less rare? Rape crimes involving heterosexual or homosexuality. <MINEIrrelavent topic.
Umm, actually it's not. You are blaming one thing out of fear. Because of some slight risk (Like kinda what everything has).
Just like how you can control your sexuality, you can control beliefs and not actually hurt anyone with it.
No.
I depended it on it once maybe because you claimed that the experiment was not known to a lot of people, so that was when it was fair to bring out the views and ratings to show that your claim involving how many was false. <MINE
No, I claimed it was not accepted by a lot of scientists. Of course the NALs would buy into it.
*Drinks*
What a horrible argument. Again, depending on popularity (Hell if that's even "true" too) and depending on 'who'. Instead of actually trying to argue how it's "wrong". But of course, you can't do that and just (In a lazy way possibly) give use random people (Becauze manyz scienzitz) as an "excuse".
The second part at the same time was about you claiming that
it was a 'false' thing just because it was not known to many scientists
(That was a different part at the same time). <MINEI did not say it wasn't known by many scientists, I said it was not accepted or discussed by many scientists. Big difference.
I don't know about that.
But either way, your reasoning isn't a good argument. Lack of discussion or lack of acceptance =/= good point.
lel <HIS
How matured. <MINE
Well I had to fill in something.
Or you could just skip it, or say something else that's more matured.
Again you don't get it.
I mean like in the mode of debating, like 'having a debate', and just acting like that makes you a really immature debater. <MINE
Mode of debate? You just keep making stuff up, don't you?
But it connects to something real. Just like how 'fetishphobia' is a term fairly made to describe people with a 'fear of fetishes' because phobia it's self means fear of something.
Therefor, it was a fair term.
What? No I was talking about the time USA sent jets, etc. to this
country to stop Osama Bin Laden from hurting the country as a main
example. <MINE
We did not use jets to take out Bin Laden. We sent in elite Navy SEALs.
Whatever.
And
even though Bin Laden is gone, it did not get rid of terrorism. We
still have terrorist groups like ISIS who could potentially pose a
threat to the U.S. and other places.
But it got rid of some problems in one country at least. Therefor, it's proof that countries can help other people.
Just because it didn't help the whole world doesn't mean they never helped with anything.
Let's see, last time we tried to "help"
a certain few nations, that HAPPENED to be hostile toward us, we got
stuck in some desert tribal war we can not get out of. <HIS
Maybe sometimes failure can happen, but due to other parts of our history, that's not always the case. <MINE
My point is that with the situation in the world right now, it most likely will fail.
But that wasn't your argument though.
The point was that it's possible thanks to history and you clearly don't know for sure.
YET, if it's no longer possible for countries to help other countries and that the people can't do anything, are you suggesting that we should just let the other countries suffer now?
It is not that simple. <HIS
I should be saying that to you. <MINE
Why?
I already told you why.
What George W. Bush did in the Middle East is an example enough. <HIS
You act like that one fail means it will always be failure in the future and past. <MINE
When
the U.S. succeeds, it does wonderful things. However when the U.S.
fails, it fails hard. And the fact the U.S. is stuck in a war in the
middle east right now is an example of what happens when the U.S. fails.
George
W. Bush pretty much fucked up any chance of the U.S. being able to send
aid to those places because he already generated a lot of hostility
toward the U.S. there.
Bush left a mess that Obama couldn't clean
up, and surely the next president wont be able to clean up either. It
is not an easy fix. It will take years, even possibly decades, to clean
up the Middle East and restore America's reputation in that part of the
world.
Geopolitics do not work like waving a magic wand and
making things all better. The current global situation is extremely
complicated, and there will be no quick fix! The U.S. can not do
anything at this point because we do not want to get ourselves into a
further mess.
Understand?
I kinda do, but it still doesn't change the fact that we can still have new ideas. Just like the Bin Laden example.
And of course, other history too.
And when your questions are ignorant? <HIS
How? I question you for an answer, that's like asking you directly for what you think I'm missing. <MINE
What?
Me asking for proof doesn't mean I am ignorance of something.
Though, you are ignorant of the other history though. <MINE
What "other history?"
Bin Laden, fighting for rights, other people sharing the idea of Gay Rights to other countries, etc.
Also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/dac-giving-countries_n_7266168.html
And don't forget the World Wars.
Speaking of that, I think gay rights has also helped other countries too. <MINE
What does this have to do with gay rights?
I'm sorry, but I thought this was about 'countries helping other countries'?
In fact, fighting for rights, etc. has often been a big help. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be here. <MINE
Why are you bringing irrelevant information into this whole thing?
I'm sorry, but I thought this was about 'countries helping other countries'?
People in the country is part of the country you know.
That's right! wwwarea is defending Chris Chan! <HIS
Really? I'm saying that it's inhuman to put pain on others REGARDLESS of what they did.
What an immature fucking reply. <MINE
Well
Chris Chan has been charged for assault twice, including his more
recent incident of macing someone over Sonic Boom. And he did not have
to respond to the trolls, he just kept feeding them and brought the
trolling on himself.
The first two parts is why I suggest that it's still inhuman to hurt others because that's NOT how you handle something. The last part is just victim blaming.
You act like the trolls don't have free will, but they "do", they have the choice to stop it. Just like how bullies have the choice to stop picking on someone for having a MLP backpack in School.
You would blame the guy with the backpack because bullies can't seem to ignore it and move on.
(I also don't know, but I was reading a confusing article about suicide and it MIGHT (I could be wrong) suggested that's the same kid who committed suicide?)
Showing that you have no respect toward those who believe in morality and things against inhuman stuff. <MINE
Inhuman? Like what Otherkin think they are?
Otherkin it's self doesn't hurt others. When I said 'inhuman', I'm talking more about 'not good' like now how you handle something and that people like show that 'revenge is OK!'. Revenge is never the answer to a moral thing. At least I mostly think that.
It's like this: "It's never OK to tell someone to kill themselves, even
if they are guilty of bullying someone." and you attack me for making a
similar statement. <MINE
What?
You say "Hey guyz *mocking mode* wwwarea is defending Chris Chan!" when I was suggesting that people shouldn't hurt someone even though they did bad things.
Like I said, your selfish emotions get effected because of some slight opinion you didn't want to hear. <MINE
It's not that I do not want to hear it. It's just that I think it is stupid.
Same thing. And just because you think it's "stupid" doesn't mean you have a right to attack others.
No. Trolls also effected people's lives. Example: Someone has committed suicide because of trolls, <MINE
If you are referring to Amanda Todd, she brought that shit on herself.
I know you would victim blame the person.
That's funnel folks!
And it's not just one person.
No point to share because I know you will victim blame the person for doing something not wrong but because you think trolls have no choice to bully, causing you to blame the wrong person.
REM advocated harassment toward someone to the point of suicide JUST
because of a victimless thing (And no, it's NEVER JUSTIFIED just because
some has a negative opinion toward the type of FICTIONAL content the
guy was requesting. It's still victimless, but what ISN'T is the
advocating part, suicide, etc. Because victim is a real moral problem),
many other victims were effected. <MINE
Peter did not drive anyone toward suicide. What the hell are you talking about?
He advocated harassment toward the guy because he uploaded a snapshot for the purpose of others to see, causing the others to find it (thanks to REM) and harass the person.. almost to death.
Pretty sure that's fucked up.
And social lives are considered to be important through the Internet, etc. <MINE
I do not see your point, because like many of your sentences, this is poorly worded.
Give me proof that it is then.
But what I'm talking about is having a social media life is a big part of many people's lives. It's a major part of finding new people.
And for me, it's like the only way to find good people who are more open minded and accepting.
Well. At least I know what he means now I think.
But it's not just that, killers, and some other very dangerous things.
Actually my assumptions are educated. <HIS
Pff, yeah right. You have assume me wrong before. <MINE
Assume?
Supposed to be the case, without proof.
Because it can actually be dangerous. <HIS
So you justified bullying because of your fear-based opinion? <MINE
Fear of an actual danger?
It's still fear based. Fear that all people with a belief you worry about will do what you directly fear about.
Just like how many things can have a risk.
Maybe I should bully you for being a heterosexual then, because guess
what? That has a shit ton of rape risks more than the so-called 'new
age' thing.. <MINE
That's because the majority of the world are heterosexuals, so yes, you will get more heterosexual rapists.
And for 'new age' people, it's no different. But in fact.. it's actually VERY rare and I have yet to see even ONE report of something that connects to a New Age thing.
Yet, even if there are any, the same can be said with heterosexuality.
Heterosexual it's self has a risk.
New Age beliefs "has a risk".
Driving a car has a risk.
Owning a gun has a risk.
The list goes on.
I mean if I had to agree with you.
Again, you are fear basing, you
assume that a few bad apples (Hell if that exists for the thing I
defend) mean that the whole thing is bad it's self. <MINE
How many times have you said that?
And how many times have you said that it's dangerous? How many times have you blamed the belief as a whole JUST because of a bad apple.
It's like saying a 'foot fetish' is bad because ONE person who had it harassed someone with it. <MINE
Foot fetish is not the worst one out there.
Neither is 'common' heterosexual.
Let's see:
Heterosexual: More risks of rape.
Foot fetish: Less risky
New Age Beliefs: Least risky.
It doesn't really justify your horrible belief to bully others or to
call the whole thing bad, when the real answer is that it DEPENDS on the
person with it. <MINE
NO! That is not how it works!
YES, it does!
People can control it. Just like with heterosexuals, foot 'fetish', New Age beliefs, Christianity, etc.
Yes I can. <HIS
Three little words like that isn't strong enough. Yet, way to ignore the top part. <MINE
Top part?
A quote you were replying to. You missed the top part of the quote.
1. Even if that legal thing was "guilty", it DOESN'T justify your
abusive actions that has NOTHING to do with self-defense directly. Just
like how telling someone to 'kill yourself' isn't justified for example.
2. Tracking down a house it's self isn't illegal, unless you post it (Don't believe me? Look it up on Google). <MINE
All because it's "self defense"
Way to ignore my legal arguments.
This was more about a reaction to what REM was doing. I do not think it's self defense it's self, but at the same time, REM started it, and it's still not wrong to do that it's self if you have protection and fear reasoning.. And not posting the house information on public.
3. I didn't illegally blackmail. You need to do so for money. Again, look it up. <MINE
Sounds like bullshit. And you did do that "contract" thing, which is also illegal.
Hey, JaredtheFox92, could you explain why it is illegal to him?
No it's not. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Also, what I did wasn't actually an "illegal" "contract".
Here is why:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/illegal-contract-lawyers.html
What I did was just a deal. Just like how REM made deals with other people.
4. Don't forget that REM/Channel also agreed to find out where I live one time. Which happened before I tried finding his house. <MINE
He
only found your city, which you posted online. And trying to find your
house in that would be finding a needle in a haystack of nearly
1,000,000 people. No one with a life would bother to track you down.
But he was still attempting to 'track where I live' by trying to find information about me online.
Plus, where did I post my city? I can't remember that!
But REM agreed to find out where I live.
In fact, the way of how I found REM's house was by public information too. Sooooooo
5. I didn't threat him that I will post the address and I'm not going to publicly post it. <MINE
Oh really, because you did. Peter even took the snapshot.
Are you talking about that I would post a picture (or it was a describe thing)?
That's not the same as saying 'where it is'.
Funnel, guys. <MINE
I'm awesome
You are far from that.
But your opinions don't respect others in the first place.
How? He just doesn't like A&O
Nah, it's not a just. He argues his personal opinion as a "fact" and made those posts JUST because I defend something I like. While he should of naturally ignored something he doesn't like.
I am very sure that his posts (Yes, an s) were their to piss me off.
Yet, my opinion arguing didn't attack him for disliking it.
And I had a right to debate and expose the fact that you are treating
your personal opinion as a "fact" over others. So I had a right to
debate. Freedom of Speech allows you do disagree. <MINE
Doesn't mean you should dedicate your life to getting upset over trivial things!
Actually I have a right to be upset about this. It's a natural feeling for the case of naturally wanting to defend something.
Again, it's a real right, end of story. Don't depend on why. Or who.
Free Speech is a two way street, not all "criticism" is right. Just because you call your crap "criticism" doesn't mean it is. <MINE
It's a two way speech, but often there is legitimate right and wrong.
And his opinion isn't legitimate. It's nothing but a personal opinion and while it's fine to have a personal reason to not like it, using that as an argument to dictate other works not his, is considered biases and rude.
And the last part makes zero sense. Since this guy has no logic. <MINE
And you just proved his point.
Again with the usual "because I said so" crap.
I'm just saying he doesn't respect other opinions and that I have a right to disagree on claims that goes beyond a personal area.
In the end, the rest are just idiotic bullshit about me. <MINE
Riiight.
It is.
Also, I am not a nutjob and I am not changing for the "worse".. Yet, I'm already fine. <MINE
I'm sure that is what they all say.
I should be saying that to you actually.
I have a right to defend myself and I have a good reason why.
Freedom of Speech only protects you legally. In social situations certain behavior is unacceptable.
So you justified *ahem* disrespecting opinions because of what some random people think?
Sorry, but
society isn't right. They were and are still wrong on many things.
In the end, it's NEVER OK to bully those who has freedom of speech to promote change.
It's morally wrong.
Back then, when someone had the behavior of standing up for white and black equally, that was considered 'socially unacceptable', but does that make it wrong? No.
I am a guy who believes that he/she can help change the world. And no matter what anyone thinks, it's not wrong. And it's still fair to argue that you are guilty of attacking people for having a heart and a right to disagree.
Yet, a "disrespectful" for bringing out disrespecting "OMZ BALTZO IS BETTERZ/MY PERSONZL OPINIONZ IS FACTZ!"
I bet that guy would attack a person who said 'A&O IZ BETTERZ', which creates an unfair feeling. <MINE
LOL I do not see him attacking anyone.
It's an assumption. He would probably judge (just like I do to him) that it's bad to say 'A&O is a better story than other stories'.
Of course, a sane person would realize that all story approaches are equally fine for what they are.
Yet, if he has a right to argue, anyone else can argue him back. That's freedom of speech guys. Two way street. <MINE
Yep, and people can say how much of an idiot they think you are. Two way street.
And people can yet, stand up further and show the fact that they are not idiots. Two way street.
Yet, calling someone an idiot for debating shows how immature you are.
-------------
*Immature video*
It was some random opinion that was filled with arguable claims.
Funny that the guy just goes rabid and pretends that some reviewer's opinion is "fact" when it's actually not. Plus, very bias as it brings out intentional things; which is the opposite of improving, as to improve, you are supposed to improve something for WHAT IT IS.
-----------------------------
This guy just won't stop would he?
I know this article is very long, but funnel is no different.
Also, I'm not losing the battle. I'm actually winning it. Don't depend on the offensive feedback toward that shitty journal.
