VeggieBoards banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
PETA has clearly been compromised by evil demons, sexuality as a weapon, giving poor people fur coats, wastes money when simple alternatives are easily more max ROI, etc...

I tried having that discussion before but nobody is willing to respond... What do I do? Where do I go?

I feel the need to try, imagine I am right about telepathy and PETA and the government and others are abusing people like human livestock, mitigating people who would otherwise kink their plans... How do you fight back when the cops are in on it?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Hello Jacob.
There are many different worldviews, personality types, and styles in this world, so different vegans and vegan organizations will promote veganism differently.
I personally don't follow PETA much, but I don't oppose them either.
I've avoided this forum because it seems a little too zealously moderated, and I don't like wasting time having posts I've spent a lot of time and thought on deleted.
(And you're sounding just a little bit schizophrenic here....)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
(And you're sounding just a little bit schizophrenic here....)
Sure, but why would that be a reason to not collaborate? If they really thought it was "schizophrenia" (internal phenomenon) and not "telepathy" (external phenomenon), they should just have some logic filter... Yet none of my arguments are given logical counter arguments, it's all social engineering type immediate rejection stuff... Hilarious how the other narrative (telepathy is real and the government and corporations are lying about it to abuse people) does sorta fit the empirical results... Culture is a cult, they're culturally pro science but don't actually have that agnostic position of a real scientific mind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Just watched the video. Very long, boring, unfunny and pointless. I fail to see what it has to do with PETA and its outreach methods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Just watched the video. Very long, boring, unfunny and pointless. I fail to see what it has to do with PETA and its outreach methods.
It illustrates the idea that the government thinks mind raping vegetarian interns is acceptable or something to suggest to the public...

In terms of PETA, if telepathy is real and the government and corporations are lying about it, that would imply that there were mind rapists scattered throughout society treating humans like livestock, PETA not being an exception... I feel like, if you take that perspective and consider the possibility that they've been infiltrated by carnist mind rapists, the whole "giving poor people fur coats after 40 years of protesting fur" or "naked vegan women in public exposing themselves to indifferent omnivores while lots of vegan men are isolated" or "killing 95% of all the animals they take in at their shelters" or etc. etc. etc.... All of that has a slightly different flavor to it...

Seems like it would be worth the effort to have that conversation and every instance of exposing the truth, telepathy is real, would be important to point out publicly...

I'm imagining being able to reach some vegan youth to actually change decision making, but then I can't just force people to have this conversation and you're the only one so far to respond so...

I tried...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
With stuff like this, minus the support of what you, yourself, touted as being an important thing to look at: "empirical results", you're not going to get much traction. In other words... you need evidence. You can't just say "Telepathy fits the empirical results" - that isn't going to fly. And it shouldn't. Not by a long shot. Just like if I were to point to a hurricane hitting New Orleans, claim that it was hit because it is a den of iniquity, and then further claim that the hurricane was God's retribution for sin and that that all fits "the empirical results." Saying stuff like that, without evidence, is just me outing myself as an untrustworthy source of information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
With stuff like this, minus the support of what you, yourself, touted as being an important thing to look at: "empirical results", you're not going to get much traction. In other words... you need evidence. You can't just say "Telepathy fits the empirical results" - that isn't going to fly. And it shouldn't. Not by a long shot. Just like if I were to point to a hurricane hitting New Orleans, claim that it was hit because it is a den of iniquity, and then further claim that the hurricane was God's retribution for sin and that that all fits "the empirical results." Saying stuff like that, without evidence, is just me outing myself as an untrustworthy source of information.
Well thanks for the negative social engineering...
What sort of evidence would you accept for a purely social thing where the claim is they're lying for the sake of control?
Does 2 billion Christians believing in at least one telepath, Jesus, count for nothing? I'm not saying their narrative is correct but if the only thing available is social?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Well thanks for the negative social engineering...
Well, at least your use of the qualifying word "negative" means you realize that "Social engineering" doesn't have to be a bad thing. Like in the case of, "socially engineering" boundaries. Like the fact that I am trying to inform you that people should not just take you at your word that others are being controlled by some form of telepathy. I don't feel this fits the observable situation at all. People just seem like idiots much of the time, and so they believe things EVEN WITH LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE. There's the real problem, if you ask me. So consider this me "socially engineering" some boundaries for the relationship between you and I - don't bring things to the table without supportive evidence... which you have basically tacitly admitted you have ZERO of. Don't be proud of such a thing.

What sort of evidence would you accept for a purely social thing where the claim is they're lying for the sake of control?
If the claim is that someone is lying, I hope you do realize that this is a claim that there is something objectively untrue about what is being said. And therefore it means that there is something in the sphere of all knowledge that can be known to put on display the fact that what they have said is untrue. So there you go... find the evidence that proves what is being said is a lie, and bring it to light. If you are objectively correct about the evidence you come up with flying in the face of claims made, then should be no way someone can simply deny it without providing staunch justification. Perhaps you have already done this in some other thread, and if so, point me to it - I'll read it, and let you know what I think. I'm completely green here.

Does 2 billion Christians believing in at least one telepath, Jesus, count for nothing?
Yes. It counts for absolutely nothing. Absolutely. Zero. Nada. I don't care. Not one bit.

I'm not saying their narrative is correct but if the only thing available is social?
Then you find something else. Again... find the thing that is approaching objectivity. Catching someone in a lie, or being hypocritical, that's good. Use that if you have it... but again, you need the evidence that displays that what is being said is a lie/hypocrisy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Well, at least your use of the qualifying word "negative" means you realize that "Social engineering" doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Negative social engineering in the sense that you're doing this pressure thing to reject the idea, if you were doing this pressure thing to accept it would be positive social engineering... Psychology is not philosophy so no, I disagree that social engineering is ever justifiable...

I don't bring things to the table without supportive evidence... which you have basically tacitly admitted you have ZERO of. Don't be proud of such a thing.
Hilarious how you are claiming superior evidence on comment #2 and without any links or something to look at... merely the assertion that I have the burden of proof even with 2 billion Christians (1 billion Muslims) and the status quo from a government that has tons of exposed lies and abuses in the nature of psychopathic totalitarian control over the lives of their citizens
find the evidence that proves what is being said is a lie, and bring it to light
Hilarious how you don't have to provide any evidence, meanwhile alternative explanations like schizophrenia have absolutely nothing but social classifications from elites, theres no blood test, and of course there are political incentives to lie
then should be no way someone can simply deny it without providing staunch justification.
Sophists will always do this abusive infinite denial thing, defeating sophistry is not the standard
Yes. It counts for absolutely nothing. Absolutely. Zero. Nada. I don't care. Not one bit.
Then you need another explaination for what they are experiencing
Then you find something else.
Find something else as in pretend 2 billion people and their claims of direct experience don't exist? There are plenty of other mainstream examples of suggesting it's real... "These aren't the droids you're looking for "

Btw, surely you will say it's a coincidence but for the sake of the audience, this guy literally made his profile 2 hours before commenting
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
EVEN WITH LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE
Telepathy is a social thing, theres no mechanistic way (or I know of no mechanism) to expose it if they're going to choose to lie to you... Its like a conspiracy, right?

I do want to point out that you didn't answer my question, what evidence would you accept for something that is purely a social phenomenon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
In the legal world there are two standards
"beyond a reasonable doubt"
and
"a preponderance of evidence"
You appear to be unreasonably committed to the beyond a doubt thing... I believe I can argue for a preponderance of evidence (or atleast observations that better fit this other narrative).
#hisNameWasBradley
If you remember the story, Bradley Manning, after having been caught by military forces leaking intel to wikileaks, was thrown in a black site military prison, a month later he emerges with bruises all over his face, delirious and wishing to cut off his dick and have everyone call him Chelsea... Your narrative of reality would have to suggest that was a total coincidence and in no way consistent with a psychopathic government that truly has this boundlessly nihilistic regard for human rights...
Telepathy isn't the new thing and abusing people isn't new but if trans is genuinely apart of human nature why was it missing from the human narrative for thousands of years and only now is a thing with modern medicine... They definitely didn't say that was normal when I was a child...
Another aspect of this which is apart of the narrative from ancient antiquity is temporal messaging, seems obvious that to be consistent with all of the other evil I've pointed out, they sabotage children before they can defend themselves...
Obviously that is a much more fantastical claim and I do still claim to be agnostic of that possibility but it just so happens the whole of Roman religion revolved around the Janus deity... so idk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I don't understand why the comment with the link to Garys website needs moderator approval but everything else was automatic... What a stupid way to compromise on the appearance of censorship
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
In the legal world there are two standards
"beyond a reasonable doubt"
and
"a preponderance of evidence"
You appear to be unreasonably committed to the beyond a doubt thing... I believe I can argue for a preponderance of evidence (or atleast observations that better fit this other narrative).
When it comes to things that I literally can't tell whether or not there is any affect on my life, I'm going to need a lot more convincing, for sure.

#hisNameWasBradley
If you remember the story, Bradley Manning, after having been caught by military forces leaking intel to wikileaks, was thrown in a black site military prison, a month later he emerges with bruises all over his face, delirious and wishing to cut off his dick and have everyone call him Chelsea... Your narrative of reality would have to suggest that was a total coincidence and in no way consistent with a psychopathic government that truly has this boundlessly nihilistic regard for human rights...
And you claim to know pretty much exactly why this "Bradley" character did these things. Where is the "preponderance of evidence" for this?

Telepathy isn't the new thing and abusing people isn't new but if trans is genuinely apart of human nature why was it missing from the human narrative for thousands of years and only now is a thing with modern medicine... They definitely didn't say that was normal when I was a child...
This one seems to have a very apparent and easy answer. It always was there... these feelings in some individuals, but it took a ton of time before anyone was comfortable even voicing such a thing, or even being able to identify exactly what it was perhaps. Men have worn women's clothing for hundreds of years, for example, and there are historical accounts of women hiding in their skin and portraying men. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexual relationships were even common in some past societies (like in ancient Greece). Gender has been a "fluid" thing for quite a while, and with the stigma attached to this sort of thing EVEN TODAY, in modern times, is it any wonder that people hid such things from the world? People are generally buttholes to one another... who wants to literally INVITE people to think ill of them? It is only once these things are not thought of as "ills" that you can begin sharing these things... and we STILL AREN'T EVEN FULLY THERE YET.

Anyway... I'd like to go back to address one very pernicious and disgusting inference you made over a particular situation, because I heartily believe it to be a fantastic example of why no one should take you seriously because it displays handily that your priorities and opinions are very likely completely jacked up and terrible. So here it is:

naked vegan women in public exposing themselves to indifferent omnivores while lots of vegan men are isolated
This is a comment that you would expect to come out of the mouth of an Incel, quite frankly, and the idea that women should be throwing themselves at particular men regardless their actual desires or their consent to do so is a completely indefensible position. Your comment is also a complete non-sequitur. These women's tastes in men has absolutely nothing to do with the protest they were at, or the fact that they were naked during said protest, etc. That they exposed themselves to "omnivores" while vegan men are single? Are you being serious? There is no correlation between those things. A woman being naked at any moment does not, in any way, inform you of her choice in partners. Who they expose their nakedness to does not have any bearing on whether or not some vegan men are single, or give any indication as to why those vegan men are single, etc. etc. etc. The comment is disturbing, to be completely honest. Idiotic secondly. Don't say things like this. Just don't. Seriously... it is for your own good. As I stated, comments like this will only erode your credibility. You wonder where what you call "honest conversation" is at... and the reality is, if this is an example of your standard fare, then it is quite clear you have flushed the probability of serious discussions being had with you DOWN THE TOILET.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The problem is you're not operating with honest virtuous standards of a real philosophical conversation, you're doing this abusive social engineering thing to win no matter what... I'm truly just responding for the sake of the audience...


Also you have yet to answer my question, what sort of evidence would you accept for a purely social phenomenon?


It always was there... these feelings in some individuals, but it took a ton of time before anyone was comfortable even voicing such a thing, or even being able to identify exactly what it was perhaps.
Isn't it hilarious how you're now mind reading as an argument against my position?


Men have worn women's clothing for hundreds of years, for example, and there are historical accounts of women hiding in their skin and portraying men.
So wearing clothing is evidence you would accept?

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexual relationships were even common in some past societies (like in ancient Greece).
Right, the argument is telepathic mind rapists use sexuality as a weapon... Very very old thing... Not saying I know that it's impossible to genuinely have a homosexual nature but if you are some deviant sexuality you should always be an advocate for telepathy realism awareness...

Gender has been a "fluid" thing for quite a while
Fluid? That is literally not true for more than 95% of the population for thousands of years...

These women's tastes in men has absolutely nothing to do with the protest they were at, or the fact that they were naked during said protest, etc. That they exposed themselves to "omnivores" while vegan men are single? Are you being serious? There is no correlation between those things. A woman being naked at any moment does not, in any way, inform you of her choice in partners.
You say this as if they were spontaneously doing this without being systematically lead to that type of bizarro thing by multi-zillion dollar entities that literally do nothing in the other direction, aka facilitating vegan community

Assume the premise for a second, your bullshit blablabla about there being no correlation when that would be blatantly demonic... Who is going to go Vegan because you took your top off?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top