Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Chronicles of a stable genius - all the biggliest stuff

johnsmith said:
To start with, you realise we are in an era of history where there is mass deception everywhere - in politics, the Media, in education etc.

It's not just lies.

The Communist-style of deception is to use the same exact words, but re-define those words ... so that when you say the exact thing, it means the opposite.

Hence, CONSPIRACY and THEORY.

You, JS96, I'm not sure how old you are. But somewhere back in your primary school days, they were trying to teach you to think. Hence, consider this:

- a theory. In science class, what the teacher train you to do with "theories"??? The answer is: YOU TEST THE THEORY TO SEE IF THE THEORY IS TRUE.

- a theory in itself could be true, or could be false. So it needs to be tested. Tested against evidence and facts.

But somewhere, you or your entire generation has been given an opposite spin, that when something is labelled a THEORY, you are trained like a lab-rat to run in the opposite direction, because the word "theory" is now defined as being nonsense. i.e. if you believe the theory then you're an idiot.

If you cannot follow my logical flow of explanation, it means the indoctrination is strong in you.

You cannot believe a theory UNTIL it has been TESTED to be true.

No one should believe a theory. A theory is merely someone's guess or postulation. We can only believe a theory AFTER it has been proved to be fact.

I'll summarise:

1) If someone tries to persuade you by insulting something as a "conspiracy theory" - you are dealing with a deceiver, or a deceived person. They are spinning you.

2) Whereas, if a person says, if it's a conspiracy theory, then their instant response is: let us test the conspiracy THEORY by facts and evidence to see if the theory is true or false ... that is a person of truth. Very, very rare.
Click to expand...

"1) If someone tries to persuade you by insulting something as a "conspiracy theory" - you are dealing with a deceiver, or a deceived person. They are spinning you.

2) Whereas, if a person says, if it's a conspiracy theory, then their instant response is: let us test the conspiracy THEORY by facts and evidence to see if the theory is true or false ... that is a person of truth. Very, very rare."

These look like theories to me.
 
NicCarBel said:
Best was this that happened online

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It may be controversial, it may make people mad-but I know who is best to lead our country. Here is who we should vote for to be our next president. Now go vote. <a href="https://t.co/o9RwIPEG2U">pic.twitter.com/o9RwIPEG2U</a></p>&mdash; John Layfield (@JCLayfield) <a href="">November 2, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Ha ha rad
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Speak english dude, I dont live on the internet to understand these woke war buzz words.? Cope with what?

Are you not understanding the implication? It's called you scratch my back Ill tickle your man boobs...

Click to expand...
Cope essentially means avoiding uncomfortable truths. For example if your team loses a game you may say "they only won because they got a lucky goal or the ref was biased" instead of "they won because they have more ability than us"
 
Keeper66 said:
"1) If someone tries to persuade you by insulting something as a "conspiracy theory" - you are dealing with a deceiver, or a deceived person. They are spinning you.

2) Whereas, if a person says, if it's a conspiracy theory, then their instant response is: let us test the conspiracy THEORY by facts and evidence to see if the theory is true or false ... that is a person of truth. Very, very rare."

These look like theories to me.
Click to expand...

When you say, "These look like theories to me" - that's your assertion. The next step is to get down to facts and evidence. I have followed the matter almost daily for the last 4 years, so I'm not unaware of the information. But I'm not going to write essays here. The information is covered by numerous articles on the internet. But I can point you to the information, provided you approach it as a truth-seeker, rather than a partisan who is only interested in seeing your team win.

To begin with, you can scroll up in this thread where I asked people to do an AI test on the definition of "lack of standing". If you're unwilling to do that, I would not waste my time going further, if you're not willing to do the most basic homework.
 
Keeper66 said:
"1) If someone tries to persuade you by insulting something as a "conspiracy theory" - you are dealing with a deceiver, or a deceived person. They are spinning you.

2) Whereas, if a person says, if it's a conspiracy theory, then their instant response is: let us test the conspiracy THEORY by facts and evidence to see if the theory is true or false ... that is a person of truth. Very, very rare."

These look like theories to me.
Click to expand...
Don't encourage that flog. Believes the earth is literally 6000 years old. You can't reason with a fool like this.
 
Last edited:
johnsmith said:
When you say, "These look like theories to me" - that's your assertion. The next step is to get down to facts and evidence. I have followed the matter almost daily for the last 4 years, so I'm not unaware of the information. But I'm not going to write essays here. The information is covered by numerous articles on the internet. But I can point you to the information, provided you approach it as a truth-seeker, rather than a partisan who is only interested in seeing your team win.

To begin with, you can scroll up in this thread where I asked people to do an AI test on the definition of "lack of standing". If you're unwilling to do that, I would not waste my time going further, if you're not willing to do the most basic homework.
Click to expand...

because this is a trump thread, can you tell me why God chose to spare trump (the man who goes against every bible teaching) and instead smear the brains of the man who had dedicated his life to his community, all over his family?

Just want to know because Evangelicals (and even Trump himself) are saying this moment was an act from god.
 
T_S_F said:
because this is a trump thread, can you tell me why God chose to spare trump (the man who goes against every bible teaching) and instead smear the brains of the man who had dedicated his life to his community, all over his family?
Click to expand...

Yes I am capable of doing that.

But there is the big picture approach - versus the one question one answer like cornering a person in an interview. It's like Republican vs. Democrat ... unless you go total big picture and examine it from each side's worldview, there is zero probability that a short answer will change anyone's stance.

But if you were a big-picture person, you would have wanted me to give a big-picture person. Whereas, you sound like a person who can't care a stuff about truth, and just want to catch me on a gotcha answer.

I have sat with people for 3-4 hours and given them a big picture presentation, and even if they don't agree with it at that instant, they full understand why it is said so. I don't see that same openness in you, tsf.
 
johnsmith said:
Yes I am capable of doing that.

But there is the big picture approach - versus the one question one answer like cornering a person in an interview. It's like Republican vs. Democrat ... unless you go total big picture and examine it from each side's worldview, there is zero probability that a short answer will change anyone's stance.

But if you were a big-picture person, you would have wanted me to give a big-picture person. Whereas, you sound like a person who can't care a stuff about truth, and just want to catch me on a gotcha answer.

I have sat with people for 3-4 hours and given them a big picture presentation, and even if they don't agree with it at that instant, they full understand why it is said so. I don't see that same openness in you, tsf.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you haven't answered. Just want to know because Evangelicals (and even Trump himself) are saying this moment was an act from god.

Please just answer the question and open my mind.
 
Muz said:
Don't encourage that flog. Believes the earth is literally 6000 years old. You can't rain with a fool like this.
Click to expand...

A symptom of mockers is their main mode of debate is attacking people with "ad hominem" attacks. Whereas, my approach is facts and evidence THAT START with the big picture side of the spectrum.

Whereas you attack me on small-picture issues, and refuse to get drawn into a big-picture debate.
 
T_S_F said:
Ok, so you haven't answered. Just want to know because Evangelicals (and even Trump himself) are saying this moment was an act from god.

Please just answer the question and open my mind.
Click to expand...

To answer that, we first have to tackle the question of: why would a God, who is meant to be loving, allow suffering and death in the world?

Until that big picture question is answered, there is no basis for tackling a specific example of why God allowed the death of an innocent attendee at a Trump rally.
 
johnsmith said:
To answer that, we first have to tackle the question of: why would a God, who is meant to be loving, allow suffering and death in the world?

Until that big picture question is answered, there is no basis for tackling a specific example of why God allowed the death of an innocent attendee at a Trump rally.
Click to expand...

No we don't. I don't need the big philosophical reason. Just give me the motivation for this act - and he didn't just 'allow the death', he really took it to the next level with the execution of this act.

Apologies for using the 'he' pronoun for God. I obviously don't know what God's pronouns are.
 
johnsmith said:
When you say, "These look like theories to me" - that's your assertion. The next step is to get down to facts and evidence. I have followed the matter almost daily for the last 4 years, so I'm not unaware of the information. But I'm not going to write essays here. The information is covered by numerous articles on the internet. But I can point you to the information, provided you approach it as a truth-seeker, rather than a partisan who is only interested in seeing your team win.

To begin with, you can scroll up in this thread where I asked people to do an AI test on the definition of "lack of standing". If you're unwilling to do that, I would not waste my time going further, if you're not willing to do the most basic homework.
Click to expand...

If you are saying they are not theories, then obviously you are stating them as facts, or you are telling lies. What other options are there?

So which one is it - theory, fact, or lie?
 
Keeper66 said:
If you are saying they are not theories, then obviously you are stating them as facts, or you are telling lies. What other options are there?

So which one is it - theory, fact, or lie?
Click to expand...

I gave an AI-generated summary of assertions in this thread - see post No.#142 - Tuesday at 2:30 PM. To make it easy for you, here is the link and then just scroll to post #142.

https://greenandgoldfc.com/threads/chronicles-of-a-stable-genius-all-the-biggliest-stuff.49/page-8

Note that those are assertions.

e.g. to say that the voter rolls in so many states are crammed with inaccurate entries. That is an ASSERTION. To prove that assertion, we have to see what evidence has been gathered to prove that.

All the points in my thread No.#142. Each point needs to be tested by evidence to see if it is fact.

But one thing that is NOT an assertion is the legal definition of "lack of standing". That comes down to a legal dictionary definition. It's like a dentist telling you the definitions of molar, canine, incisor teeth - and you laugh it off as nonsense.

If a person has zero idea of what "lack of standing" means, in terms of basic legal definitions, they cannot discuss this issue of voter fraud.

Show me any person who spouts whether the voter fraud was true or not -- and if they cannot tell you precisely the definition of "lack of standing" -- they're a moron that's remote-controlled by corporate media, who merely parrots what they read in the newspaper/nightly news.

As I said in my post #164 in this thread, I've made it easy for you. Just enter the following question into several AI websites, such as perplexity.ai, chatgpt.com - and see the definition of "lack of standing". Go ahead, don't fear gaining knowledge:

If you suddenly see a burglar breaking into your neighbour's house - and you use your phone to video the whole thing - from the burglar breaking the window, and later carrying off your neighbour's valuables. And, what's more, you instantly recognise the burglar by name. And you have all that on video. i.e. you do have evidence. Now, you file a court action against the burglar. And the court throws out your case due to you having "lack of standing" - please explain what "lack of standing" means - and does a plaintiff having lack of standing automatically mean that the plaintiff's evidence was either non-existent or weak evidence? Please provide your answer in very simple language that even simple people can understand.​
 
Last edited:
Pasquali said:
Cope essentially means avoiding uncomfortable truths. For example if your team loses a game you may say "they only won because they got a lucky goal or the ref was biased" instead of "they won because they have more ability than us"
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification dude... "uncomfortable truth" would necessitate me really caring about the US elections right? hahahahahahahaha
 
johnsmith said:
To answer that, we first have to tackle the question of: why would a God, who is meant to be loving, allow suffering and death in the world?

Until that big picture question is answered, there is no basis for tackling a specific example of why God allowed the death of an innocent attendee at a Trump rally.
Click to expand...
God, in his infinite wisdom, gave humanity the gift/curse of free will..... there "big picture" taken care of... now answer the question.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top