Social Justice & its warriors.

Social justice, broadly speaking is the idea that a group of people (society itself) can & will be the judge of any given event.

The SJW, social justice warrior is the one who engages in this sort of activity, promotes it, or thinks that it is a good idea.

On twitter, youtube, facebook this sort of thing can be seen. Groups of people will rally around someone who has been declared the "victim" &, anyone who denies that they are a victim, is automatically the enemy & a proper target of the mob. The mob mentality here is clear, the in group is protected at all costs, conform or die.

You might have read or heard about "virtue signaling" this is when someone says they support a "marginalized group" to display there "virtue", its unclear if this is a tip off if that person is a SJW type or not in my view, but certainty its not a good sign, do we really have to go out of our way to say we support any given group? Also, are not most of these groups well supported by now? Just how long is a group "marginalized" typically this is said to be LGBT(+) but, is that group REALLY oppressed? Sometimes its "colored" people that are marginalized, sometimes its women. Its never men, never white people, never its heterosexuals.

So you are either in the protected group, or you are not, if you are not - then you are a target of the sjw type, and even if you are part of the protected group, you still might be a target should you say something "out of line". Casting doubt on someone claiming abuse, rape, discrimination are all sins that the sjw's will get you for.

You are simply not allowed to say things that might offend people. What might that be? Anything of course. "Hate speech" is a commonly dropped idea - that simply doesn't exist as any sort of coherent speech, hate speech is simply speech that people dislike. Saying anything racist, anti-LGBT, anti (X) whatever (X) might be if (X) is a "marginalized" group - is a sin & is punishable by the mob.

People who are offended by anything will tweet out that they have been emotionally traumatized by the words, and the group of sjw types will then attack that person that did this. With, or without any evidence. Saying sorry is only proof you are guilty, so never, EVER apologize.

Its very much cult or religious in nature, this ideology - its focused on protection of feelings, it props up the "week" as it tries to smash down the "strong" - who is the strong? Whoever is not one of the protected groups of course.

Is it a bad thing? Is it harmful? Oh yes, people have lost there jobs over people complaining online. What madness. Speech online is hampered by the busy-bodies who feel that they must and should report all the "bad speech" to everyone. That others must join in to stamp out this horrible thing that someone said on facebook.

Sadly - companies are spineless and are not standing up for there workers as they should be. Saying that no, we will not fire (X) person as they did not say (Z) during company time. But so afraid of a bad image. Frankly, I'd see any company standing up for its employees as noble.

SJW's also think they are RIGHT and feel justified about doing these things. They are self-righteous people. They think they have a better ethical & moral code then you do.

You might have heard that people get "red pilled" - this happens when they are attacked by the mob, only then do they see, that this idea is a bad one. They must be eaten by the intolerant mob to see just how evil the ideology is.

What can one do? I said before to simply not play the SJW game, but also, be better then them, do not use those hate tactics, do not moral police people. You be a good person. Love, not hate will win out in the end, it has in the past.

Will they eat each other? One can hope. Until then, the war marches on, but only if we let it. Only if we do not stand tall, and be better then they.

Atheism: still not a world view.

What the bleep is a worldview anyway?

Well I guess the net will have to answer that:

Wiki:
A world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Google:
A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Merriam Webster:
A comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.

That should cover it, I suspect some will reject those in favor of there own idea of what a worldview is, as they might have a worldview about the word worldview...

What about the word Atheist?

Wiki:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. 

Google:
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Merriam Webster:
A person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism.

Again, that should do it, but again people can make there own choice about what they think the word should mean or does. These are the most common uses of these words. So, lets just go with them shall we?

Alright so the question that got me to do this is from a twitter question directed at me by my esteemed associate John Buck:

(Tweet)

Plenty of apologists have said that atheism is a world view, and others have said its not. In fact, many apologists complain that atheism does not tell you how to live, what to do, feel, believe, has no ritual, no tradition & so on, well, of course it doesn't. That isn't what it is.

Atheism is, as descriptive word, not a prescriptive word. To some extent so is theist.

Theism also is not a world view. That word only tells us that someone believes in a god. 

Not what god is, how god is, where it is or anything else. Just they think there is at least one, the word theist is a bit more descriptive then atheist, as theist imply an agent-god whereas deist implies only a god that wound up the universe so to speak, and let it roll without further messing about, or a god that made us, but did so without any agency per-say.

Of course for what a deist thinks or for that matter what a theist thinks - you must ask that person. We can not know, nor should we assume that the label that they are using is being used in the common way described by dictionaries. My outline itself might very well be rejected by some theists or deists.

Simply put, nether theist, deist, agnostic, or atheist tells you what they believe in full, only one bit about there belief. What about the word "Christian" or "Muslim" well - that tells us more, and those are world views, at least, if we are using the common understanding of the words being used. We assume we are, and that is of course, that pesky natural language issue popping up: we assume other people are using words the way we understand them... and they might not be! Still, for the sake of this entry, we are assuming common use, so yes, "Christian" is a worldview, but "theist" is not.

But... why not? Isn't "GOD" a big deal? Isn't believing it world-changing? Isn't it so massive that there will be a vast gulf between the theist & atheist?

Maybe.

Yet its still not a worldview. Nether of them are. They can not inform us of the way (X) person see's the world, its simply not up to the task of doing so. 

There are people that think there are faeries (fay folk) - not many of them granted, but a few. Is belief in faeries a world view? No. Its part of one, perhaps, the best I can find on anything that is close to a religion would be "fairy belief" outlined here. In and of itself, "Fairy-believer" (faeist?) is not enough to say much about that person's way of viewing the world.

So no, atheism is not a worldview, but might be part of one, so as well is theisem - its not itself a worldview, but a part of one. 

What about the word skeptic? Is that a world view?

Hum.... it might be!

....but I'm skeptical that it is. ;)

Did Yahwah make sin, or did man?

Ah good old "god" - well, the god of the Judeo-christian "Holy Bible". I'll just call him Yahwah since that is one of the names "he" gets.

Anyway, so lots of Christian's seem to think man made sin, that is, because of Eve, then Adam eating the FORBIDDEN FRUIT. That everything went to bleep.

So, lets look at this, with logic, but first I need to recap the story...

The story thus far:

God made Adam put him in a really nice Garden. Told them they could eat anything - BUT not the tree of knowledge of good & evil or he will die. (Gen 2:17)

Then God realized, woopies, Adam is alone, so he made a bunch of other creatures, Adam however couldn't bone any of them, bummer. (Gen 20:20)

God made Adam a woman out of his rib because... why not?

Some all knowing narrator that knows what will happen latter on tells us that this is why men will leave there mom & dad - to get a woman. (Gen 2:24)

Adam & Eve are nudists, but its cool.

A serpent (Or Naga/Lilith) talked .... (sure why not) to Eve and was like "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"" (Gen 3:1)

Hold on a moment! Eve wasn't there! She wouldn't know what was said!
Adam was there! 

Also we never get a scene when Adam tells Eve about this tree. Go figure.

Eve, having only SECOND HAND information is like, nah we can eat any of the tree stuff but not touch that one or we die. (Gen 3:3)

The Tempter (Serpent/Naga/Lilith/Devil/whatever) was like , nah, you will not die, (true) but you will know what good & evil are, just like god (also true). (Gen 3:5)

Eve takes it because it looks yummy and she wants to know things, she also gives it to Adam. Things go to bleep after that. (Gen 3:6)... Okay we are caught up now.

So here begins the problem of sin, because Eve/Adam ate from this forbidden tree... that God made. God also made the serpent. And made the rule. And God made it so that Eve/Adam would not know good or evil - and made the tree's forbidden fruit look yummy and also gave Eve the desire to want to know things.

Also, God knew what Eve/Adam would do, because Yahwah knows the future (according to many Christians, eh I'm sure its in the bible somewhere)

So... who is at fault here?

You really, really want to blame Eve, she didn't know good and evil. She also had SECOND HAND information (off screen) from Adam about this tree.

Want to blame Adam? He doesn't know good and evil and was LIED TO by God - the fruit does NOT KILL THEM, and no - none of that bull about "spiritual death" nope - God said you will DIE. They didn't die. God is a liar or at the very least God didn't explain to Adam what he was saying by "die" also - does Adam know what death even is?

So its not Adam's fault either.

The fault is upon God.

It made the whole thing, knowing full well what would happen.

It blames it on the humans, but its really God's own "design".

Of course, this isn't want Christian's are told to believe, so they don't. This is the logical way to view this story, but that isn't what many Christians will do, rather they will say all sorts of things to try to

defend this nonsense story.

... Its just a story. Its not true, never was. Its a just so story, to try to say why things are bad in this world.

That's all it ever was, and all it could ever be.

Possum doesn't play dead.

This thread (click).

Point One:

Bad grammar: So? The argument is all that matters, or in this case, the analysis of the argument.

Point Two:

Missing in action. (there seems to be no point two)

Point Three:

In regards to what I read of the post that I was responding to last time, Possum has said,
more then once, that atheists worship (X), or have faith in (Z). This would require knowing what atheists are thinking, thus is special knowledge/mind reading.

Point Four:

Assumes atheists have a "faith". However, yes I looking at what you wrote I was assuming that you were trying to prove God or at least show that God is possible. This assumption was made on the idea that Possum is trying to counter atheists, best way to counter them would be to show God is a thing. Thus my assumption.

Point Five:

In your view this might very well be the case, it would take a whole argument to show that not believing in any gods is, in fact, a metaphysical world view.

Point Six:

Statements can have built in premises. However, Possum doesn't identify what they are in this case. "I lack belief in (X)" does not imply that one knows what (X) is, nor does it imply that (X) is not a thing that exists. It is a statement about the belief (or lack of) of (X) whatever (X) might be.

Belief/Non-belief statements require no burden of proof. You can say you believe in Goblins, Orgers, Dragons, and no one will require you to prove that you believe that G.O.D.'s existence. As we must assume (due to social norms and logic) that you do, in fact, believe in (X). similarly, not believing in (X) requires no proof.

However there is a key difference, saying that I do not believe in (X) does not nessarly imply that I also think (X) does not exist. And there are words that I could add to show my beliefs, or lack there of to clarify the matter.

Examples:

"Yahweh does not exist": I have the burden to show how this can be seen as a logical conclusion.
I am hosting the full burden of proof for this statement.

"I do not believe in Yahweh." I have no burden to show that I do not believe in this, and it is possible that Yahweh exists, I simply do not believe it does exist.

"I believe Yahweh does not exist." I do not have the burden to show that I do not believe this, nor do I have the burden to show that Yahweh does not exist.

"God exists." Requires burden of proof.
"I believe in God" No burden of proof.
"I believe God exists." No burden of proof.

~~~

Point Seven:

God as revealed in the bible. In what way? No one can seem to agree upon God is, as debate is plentiful among believers in what this type of god is. However, this grants the bible far more credit then I would give it. The bible itself must be shown to be true first before I care what it says about anything.

As far as god-of-the-gaps, it depends on the argument at hand.
Again with the claim that atheists worship (X). You do not know that, you can not show that, this is a claim to know things you can not hope to know, it has other logical errors as well.

"If you understood God, then there would be no question as to whether He is"

Translated:

If you apply the method that I want you to apply, in the way I want you to, then you will understand things in the way I desire, and this will lead you to conclude that the conclusion I want you to have is in fact correct.

Point Eight: 

I was trying to make sense of your objections. It seemed that it was perhaps based on the commandments. I could not make heads or tails of what your assumption that atheists have a belief in pagans is based on, so I grasped at a straw that it might be one of the commandments, in this, I did not want to make a straw-man. Perhaps you could just give a clear argument to as how you have arrived at the idea that atheists worship anything.

I assume that you are being honest with your ideas & views. What is in fact true is separate from this.
I'm not sure if I said or suggested that you are, in fact lying, I doubt I did, as I would have to have proof that you did this. However, I do not think I would point it out as it would not negate the argument(s) you presented. If others have accused you of lying, I can not respond to that as it is not my stance. I do consider it my duty to the truth. Getting to that truth, ah there is the rub.

Point Nine:

Assumes atheists have a faith. This leads into all sorts of problems. Is faith good, or is it bad? What do you mean by "faith"?

Produce a valid & sound argument to show that I (or anyone else) has such a world view, and I will agree with it and support it to the best of my ability to do so.

Point Ten:

This is the way (X) word is understood by (% of people). This is all a dictionary can do for us. No, you do not have to agree with it, but you do then have to say what you view (X) word to mean so that others are not confused. It enters into some problems of course.

Lets say that I want to say that the word God is in fact Goblin/Ogre/Dragon. Clearly you would not want to use MY way of using that word, but you might, for sake of debate, allow me to have my version - but for the sake of others we would at least label my idea vs your idea of "God" lets say "God 1" for me, and "God 2" for you, it would, of course, be better if we could agree upon using different words in full, so that others are less confused by our debate.

You might indeed think, assert and submit that the word, to you is (X). This is not how I view this word, nor do I agree with it being used to describe me & my views.

If I was to say Possum means a nitwit poopy head, clearly you would object to that. Its unfair to label Possum in such a way, it might very well be my view, perhaps I have an argument that shows via logic that this is the case. Unless & until I present such an argument, you are free to reject it. Perhaps the correct view of Possum is awesome smart head for all we know. However we must negotiate, compromise, and find something we both can live with.

So then we might agree that awesome can stay, that is subjective, but smart or poopy needs to go, and head along with it, so Possum means awesome, and hey that also rhymes. We can live with this compromise, its not all of what we want, but its good enough.

So to, perhaps rather then simply asserting that you have the right way to view the word atheists you could come to some sort of compromise about it?

Or if you can not, or will not - then produce your argument that is both valid & sound that the word is (X). How will you do that? I suggest this is an impossible task, informal logic refers to "natural language" as being an unsolved problem. What a word "must be" is in that category. Only in an artificial language might we avoid such issues. We are not speaking in that language. So, we have to deal with how the (%) of people use that word, even if we do not agree with that (%), it seems to be the easiest way to understand each other.

Point Eleven:

As far as I can see, scripture is full of errors. Who is to say my concept of God is incorrect? If God made or let humans become flawed, and humans are now in charge of what the Bible says... then the bible might be flawed. I can't trust humans due to God allowing/making humans flawed. Seems like a bad plan that God has there, but I'm not viewing God from YOUR point of view, I'm viewing it though my point of view. Perhaps we are both in error of how to view God... but if so, then again that would seem to be God's fault for allowing this, or making it this way. We could have been error free, but God didn't make it that way, so here we are, error prone. From my view, that is in and of itself, an error.A perfect system would enable a perfect bible. Bleep why even write it down? Just be a God that speaks to humans out loud in there language, bleep have just one language that is free from error! I can think of more ways to make this system better then it is, but clearly, if there is a God - it has allowed us, or made us in such a way that allows for error. The possibility that there is an error means that I can't trust the bible - or any other book about God - to be correct in full. Thus I need a system that is not reliant upon that book or books. I do have a system that does this pretty darn well: logic.

Point Twelve:

Fair enough. Make a positive argument for your ideas, whatever they might be so I can analyze it! :)

Point Thirteen:

I am willing to see what empirical evidence &/or repeatable tests you have for whatever ideas you have.

If you do not have those, then present your valid & sound argument. If you do not have that, then I must be skeptical of your conclusions.

Yes, my comment was a tongue in cheek there. My view of reality - I'm not sure I even shared with you what that is yet.

Faith/Religion Depends on what you mean by "faith"/"Religion" - You need a valid & sound argument for this assertion. Also you would need to answer if faith/religion is good or bad.

You assume a lot of things about me. Ask me what I believe or do not believe and why. (rather then commit the mind-reading fallacy)

Point Fourteen:

I'm willing to concede that I assumed you were doing one thing, when you were doing something else.

Assumes atheists have a faith at all. (Needs an argument and explanation of what those words mean to you, and if it good or bad to have faith).

~~~~

Well then that brings us to the end of this thread.
I've taken screen shots of the thread and put them together here:

~~~~

So, what is my view of all this? Its not uncommon to find theists that will assert that atheists have faith and/or a religion. This of course full of logical fallacies.

The tu quo (you as well) fallacy. As it tries to put everyone on a level playing field.

Equivocation, The words "religion" & "faith" are changed at whim to be good/bad or whatever the theist needs them to be. Books like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" - well then, that name implies that faith is BAD, right? Or is it saying that he wishes he could have MORE faith because it is good? If having faith is bad, then we should not, not believe in God if that is more faith then believing in God, but then, what would be below believing in God in terms of faith? Perhaps not believing at all? Then that makes us a pure skeptic, clearly not the writers intent, but that is the sort of issue you bring upon yourself when you make such a logical fallacy.

Mind-reading/Special Knowledge: It would take knowing what people believed in, or did not to assert they have a faith/religion or do not.

Non sequitur: Atheist: "I do not believe in God." Theist: "Ah ha! That means you do believe in God!"
Wut?

And other fallacies as well, depending upon the wording of the given argument at hand, but in essence I think these are the ones of note when you see this sort of """argument""" pop up.

I need more quotes around argument, as this isn't one. Atheists do not have a faith or religion.
However, in my first Possum post I allowed my otherwise worthy Possum to have his cake, I said sure, fine - we all have faith and religion. Now prove yours is right.

That is something he wasn't trying to do.

But he also didn't show that our faith/religion is wrong either.

So then we can't know what one is wrong or right.

That means we must be skeptical, of the conclusions.

A possum on twitter doesn't understand the word "atheist".

OlPossum1 has come to my attention via good old twitter.

Ah yes, this person seems like he is a theist of some sort, what type, I can not tell.

He has a bone to pick with atheists, and that is all well and good, but his ideas are, how to put it... incoherent.First, there is his problem with the word "atheist" he also seems to think he knows what other people believe (mind reading/special knowledge). He alone knows what atheists are, and the bleep with any corrections on the word.Well. What is one to do? I suppose you could block him, as it seems he likes to block others. But, its more fun to poke back and try (in vein) to correct him.But let me try to take the high road, and steel-man his argument. Let me assume, for now, that reality has been shaped to his ideas, and that I, and other atheists do in fact worship other (dead) idols, our own self, have no claim to objective truth.Very well. Now what?

This does not make his argument about his idea of god, (pulled from the old & new testament it seems), correct. Nor does it support any idea of any god he wants to put forth. It matters not that I (or anyone else) has "zero claim" to "objective truth" (whatever that is) - what matters is that he has not supported his claim. At all. Not even a little bit.He mentioned the commandments, I'm assuming he is referring to all 613. But perhaps he wants to ignore those, and only focus on the top ten. What version? The one where you can't boil a baby goat in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19), or the other one? Eh, I guess it doesn't matter what number ten is, because I would hazard to GUESS (since possum doesn't explain) that he is talking about the FIRST command: Exodus 20:3 that says we should have no other gods before this god. (Yahweh)

So, if we do not put this god on "top" of our god's - because according to possum we atheists bevel in other gods I suppose. Then clearly we are putting those other gods (that he calls idols) on top of our god list.However, that does not follow per say, what if we do not in fact, worship those gods at all, or very much? What if we only kinda put them on top, or near the top? Regardless, even if it is the case that we do, in fact do this, that doesn't mean that his idea is correct, that is, there is not any support for the first idea of the first commandment. He has not shown anyone that it is, and must be true.So then, it must be assumed (or presumed) to be the case that this command:

1: came from god.
2: was preserved correctly with no edits by humans.
3: is being understood correctly by humans.

Why would I, or anyone else assume any of that? Maybe one could be taken on faith by someone of this religion, granted. But how could two or three be taken at faith at all? We know humans do edit the bible - its been done before, will be done again, we have lots of different translations of this thing. How can we hope to know that someone, somewhere did not edit this in some way? Possum didn't give us anything to show that it has the same meaning in the original language from the earliest known writings we have on the bible, so we have no reason to believe that to be the case. No argument is given.

Of course one can appeal to the bit in the bible that promises it will be "preserved" (whatever that means), but what about three? According to the bible humans are sinful, wrong, flawed, imperfect, how can we hope to know if any human gets any of this right?!

So is possum right? No way to know, as no argument was given. It helps not if he thinks he has objective truth, as he has not shown he has. It helps not that he thinks he knows what this word "atheist" means. It also helps not that he seems to think he is so right, that he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone.

Well, I suppose that is what faith can do to some humans, not all mind you. Then again this is a possum, perhaps he should just play dead and not post more nonsense on twitter... or anywhere else for that matter.

King Crocoduck: As viewed though the lenses of critical theory.

(this is a joke post)

King.
What a power word, it screams of the maleness and might of the patriarchy.
For century's over 99% of all women have suffered under Kings.
So called "Queens" were always FORCED to serve under the MALES.
They were raped, every hour by these tyrants.
Kings are nothing more then Tyrant Rulers.
So of course, the vile CIS MALE has chosen to use the word "King" as part of his name online.
Of course, it gets more problematic.

Crocodile is a creature that has massive jaws that crunch pray. They hunt for the food. The male crocodile's rape the female's 9 out of 10 times, and then eat them 50% of the time. Male crocodiles are a terror symbol by the alt-right as well, with the KKK using them as far back as 1846. The crocodile is a predator.

Ducks, of course are a symbol of patriarchy as well, we all know the TOXIC MALENESS of the story "The ugly duckling" where a innocent girl is told she is ugly until she becomes OBJECTIFIED as a "pretty" Swan. This takes the power from the women this injustice has lead to the enslavement of lady's since the dawn of the first century. The duck is a symbol of racism and slavery.

So then we have "King" (Tyrant Ruler) Croc (Predator) and "Duck" (Racist Slaver)

Thus, the so called "King Crocoduck" is nothing more then a Racist Tyrant Predator, out to kill minority groups within the LGBTQIA+ are TARGETS of such rot as this toxic male who has taken it upon himself to usher in more suppression to our most sacred duty, words have meaning.

He has made several videos about post modernism and science. Trying to debunk our correct analysis of the complex web of virtual words that are within alignment dependent upon where they are used and who they are used by, and when. His WESTERN view point of course is filled with his clear bias against women & minority groups. His so called "facts" do not for example, take into account our
LIVED EXPERIENCES.

For example he laments in one of his videos that facts should be greater then feelings, humans are not robots, but this is part of his desire to rule over us since he is a Tyrant.

This vile hate speech spewing villain was swept off the platform of Twitter by our chosen one Enable Ovary Takeover.Sadly, he made a SOCK ACCOUNT to come back. We are working hard to get rid of him. #deathtokc

He also has a potty mouth, as expected, and swore in a video where he did something he called "math" but math of course is just a way to oppress women of color.

We shouldn't be surprised he is a male after all.

In short, after looking at several of his videos its clear this toxic male is anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ++, a racist, a Tyrant, and the most vile of CIS WHITE MALES. Please join us in our #deathtokc and flag his videos as hate speech.

---

This was the dumbest thing I've ever written... and I used to be a theist.

Don't play the SJW game

What is an SJW?

Social Justice Warrior.

But, what does that mean?

Its someone who thinks they can influence others to bring about "justice" within the social sphere of humanity, rather then the legal sphere. They want to get "justice" by any of the following:

Blocking: Your going to be blocked by "everyone" (all other virtuous people) on (social media) because you are wrong!

De-platforming. You are not allowed to talk at our place! We will protest! We will call in threats! We will riot! Your ideas can not be uttered here!

De-funding: You are not allowed to earn money! We must call your work, contact (paypal/pateron/youtube/etc) to get your funding cut, you deserve to have no money!

Virtue Signaling: Act of calling to arms upon the "evil" person of choice. "(X) said (Z)... get them!"

Mocking/Trolling/Harassment: Make fun of the target, all virtuous people unite to do this. They hurt whoever, now we hurt them.

Play victim to get others to join your "side": (X) person/group said (Z) bad thing about (me/group) I am so hurt!

----

All this and more, are typical of the SJW. Its ideology is that, justice can be delivered by the mob-mentality of the group, that "justice" is decided in the court of public opinion, and those who are "right" will shun those who are "wrong".

Take note, these people think they are in the "right" that they have the moral high ground, and others like them agree.

Part of this is "protecting" minority groups. Although said protection is not needed or called for, these groups "must" be protected by keyboard warrior tactics, by the mob - because those groups are special and need protection. You might see a lot of hate towards white males who are also straight come from some SJW types, but not all. Everyone has there own flavor.

They will use words as weapons: racist/homophobe/islamophobia /transphobe ALT-right. They also tend to demonize MRA because men's right activists are "bad" - because, well, of course they are.

Do not be fooled. SJWs do not really care about the group they are protecting.
They only care when it is "good" to care. The narrative is greater then the person in any given group, should anyone from said group say/do something that is not the "right" thing - that person will become a target just as fast - even more so - then anyone else. Being a (X) person from the group does not protect you from the mob-mentality of the SJWs.

What IS the narrative? The most extreme stance on any given issue, it depends on what issue the SJW is currently "defending" but they will tend to take the most extreme version of it, you can not question (X) you can not say (X) is not true, you best do all proper research on (X) or else. If you say or do anything that seems that you do not BELIEVE then you are a problem.

Of course, it will and does constantly turn on itself. This is the nature of such an ideology. You might be playing it, and having a great time riding that wave, but when it crashes down, and it will, you will be swept away by the same things you did, and, if you make it out, you will maybe see why you were so wrong to play the game in the first place.

Do not play the SJW game. It will end badly for you. It will end badly for everyone. Its not a good game. Its about power. It is NOT justice. Mob mentality is always going to be bad, it was responcible for stringing up people. We are starting to see SJW types take to the streets and promoting ever increasing violence upon those that are "bad" - who is bad? Whoever they want to be, anyone in there way, and then some.

Lets be better then those that play these games.
Let us not do the same to others.
Let us not play the SJW game.

The boy in the box

Bus rides to home from school took time about twenty mins or so, more because of stops.

Kids were cruel to each other. No control. Pure chaos. Some days were okay, not today.

A young boy sat in the front seat, no one ever took the front seat if they didn't have to, but he did.

He had a large box with him. Who knows why.

He was being picked on. I watched, thinking that, I was glad it wasn't me,
but feeling bad for him, I couldn't do anything for him. I could only watch.

Then, he made it worse. He put the box on himself.

That made those picking on him increase there fervor, there is physiology to this of course,
that when you appear weak the attackers will go even more attack then if you stand up to them.

They hit the box, threw things, spit at him, insulted him, yelled, the bus driver shouted to keep quiet.

No one did. We rode on, it seemed like forever before his house stop came and he got off.

Kids cheered, as if some victory had been won.

What was it like for that poor boy in the box? How afraid was he? How sad was he?
Did anyone care? Did the bus driver report it? Did the parents find out? Nothing seemed to change the next time, no added adult to the bus to keep us calm. Why?

Are we the ones tossing things at the box? Are we the ones sitting and watching those others doing it, saying nothing?

Have we grown out of such behavior?

Or are we all the boy in the box?

There never was an atheist community, nor will there ever be one.

It has been said that getting atheists to agree upon anything, is like herding a bunch of cats.

I take umbrage to that - cats are far easier to control.

Atheist is simply a term used for anyone that doesn't believe in:

God/god/Gods/gods/Goddess's/goddess's/Deity/deity/Nature/Truth &/or any other term for a grand maker of the universe and all we know and reality itself. (other then itself of course, but sometimes it made that as well, depends on your selected God, see a skeptic if theism persists for more then a few years)

So - what's with all the atheist groups that have met in real life - skepcon, atheistcon whatever the bleepcon? Well - people like to be social. People also like to make money. And lo - the con was born.

Conventions of all sorts exist. Sometimes they are dumb. Sometimes, they are really, really dumb. And sometimes they are run by dumb people.
By dumb I mean people who are not just nitwits, but a danger to there own self and others.

I'm talking about atheism+ mostly, but that is a whole thing that has a long, boring, dry history that you can look up I guess.

Also we have sort of, kind-of made groups on forums, g+ (when it existed), chat, and youtube. We have loose ties to each other in a very loose sense. The only thing we all agree on is that we do not believe in God (or that there is no God, or that you can't know about god...or) oh. Oh no. Bleep no.

Yes, we can't really even seem to agree on what the darn word atheist means, should mean, or does mean. Oh hi natural language you wish to mess with logic again? Bleep me.

It is clear that some humans need, or want religion, or at least something that connects them. More then a non-thing like atheism in and of itself does. So, people turn to politics, or ideology, feminism, or the social justice warrior, the MGTOW or any other group that is out there. Some ideas those groups have might be good, and some might be bad.

Like all groups, however, the problem is that humans can never seem to agree with anything, even when its all written down.

You got your bible, I've got mine, and no one can agree on what the word "word" is apparently.

Even the sacred Lobsterist is most likely debated among its adherents... most likely.

So there is not an athiest community. Just people who happen to be within that label (maybe) that might hang out together in some way, and might sometimes agree about things, but other things - eh not so much.

We take all types here, membership is free and also there is no membership.

This is why I guess I call myself a skeptic, at least no one disagree's with what that word ...

What?

Bleep. No. NO. People disagree about what skeptic is?!

For the love of....

Sigh.

Fine, whatever. Anyway so I guess there will not be a community but of course people will call it one anyway because screw it we like labels.

This whole thing was pointless to write in the end as it ends in madness and paradox.
Then again, perhaps that was the point, as such is life, its not black or white, its messy and every color and non-color.

I am pretty sure that I didn't explain anything here.

....

Good luck.

Also no such thing as luck.

...

Bleep.

Bang. You are now dead.

You just got shot. You are now dead. Well, that sucks.

Your problems are over. The living are the one who have all the problems still. Your friends, family, those that knew you, will miss you, one hopes. They will grieve, they will be sad, they will keep living, one hopes. Then, of course, things get political, as things tend to do. Perhaps one, or more of those people will protest the gun used, the make, model, the type of round. Perhaps they will ask for more laws, more something. Someone needs to do SOMETHING to fix this. Those in power will say they will get right on it. They don't. Time moves on. Each day is harder to protest then the last. You have a life, you have to move on. Sure, a few might stay with it, being a lifetime activist to try to get any law passed, anything changed, its an uphill battle. Perhaps its psychology they go after, thinking that if only we took care of the minds of troubled humans that would solve the core issue, if there is even a core issue. This to might pass. Someone needs to do SOMETHING. Some will, others will for awhile, then move on, others will do nothing then yell into the wind.

Something must change. Yet, it seems, it doesn't change. Not really. More people get shot. More people die needlessly. Who's fault is it? Left, right, politics, does it matter? You can't fix it, I can't fix it. So, people give up, the trying is hard, the doing is hard, the change is slow if any change is even possible.

Well, clearly the only way to get rid of guns is.... more guns! Yes that will solve it, more people armed will make it safer. Wait no. That doesn't work always, but sometimes! Oh! Wait what if.. no we can't do that...humm.

Yes well. The dead are dead, and can not speak. The tragic thing will go and be something new next week, or perhaps even one moment from now, people's attention is easy to distract. Oh look a nice new video about cats.

So well. Why are you reading this? Did you expect answers? Ha! Nah, but you've read something like this, someone being jaded saying, "eh, screw it" am I doing that? I guess. What else is there?

Yet, giving up - that...is wrong. But, I'm going to. I don't want to, its just...what can I do? Is there really anything? Does my vote matter? Does my voice matter? Does anything matter? What if I run for office and get in, can I change anything?

Perhaps it starts with the one who owns a gun or ten to say, enough is enough, my gun ownership is not worth the lives of others, to take there gun apart, sell it for scrap. If enough people did that... maybe that would change things? 

Or maybe we would just have more knife crime and deaths?

Well.

Your dead so, its not up to you to fix it. Bang! Oh, well there goes another one. See you back next time.

DM's Well Mind 7

Wow, I found this song, written some days gone on, a guy named Hopkins with an ill mind but I found this song's so good I've played it on rewind, its about his faith and how he lost it, although he's tryn` to talk to god and not diss` him, but its revealed as the song goes on, that his mind just found to many flaws that the story was based upon, to much what ifs, and he's done, he mentions its his life and he is having fun, as if one couldn't do that with god what is that belief based upon?

Religion is a virus of the mind you see, Dawkins said that and no one recalls his scientific legacy, they just see him as a pope of atheism but that's not true, as an atheist the only one who leads you is you. Just yourself, with no one to call upon, no prayers to be answered, no Hail Marry to hang your hopes upon, just you, and that is it, might make you feel alone, and religion knows that shit, it prays upon, our life gone wrong, it takes whatever needs we have and puts a tag upon, sayn` it can heal or help or mend all the things that life might rend, including the end of life too, they think we are nitwits? They should just quit, but they belief that shit so they think its legit.

Learning how many things I once thought was true are not, truth be told that hurt a lot, at least for awhile, then I realized that the truth was more real then I realized it, science can explore this wondrous world, with these tools we can know the for real deal, we don't have to depend upon faith or hope or whatever spell you might call upon.

Magic doesn't exist, its all just tricks, if Jesus existed he would have fooled Penn and Teller no bullshit, but upon closer exam you would see how he did the trick and the illusion would be revealed for all to see. The point is you don't know how its done, that way you can say its a miracle even though there is no way to know if you've seen a real one.

Its a hoax, but folks will say that its more believable then the alternative, what alternative I ask last I checked science hasn't come up with those answers just yet, but humans can't wait so they play dumb and call upon a thing they called god and then they carry on.

Logic and science, facts and data, those things are true and never tell no fables, you got to use your brain to understand em, they are not easy, no bedtime story this stuff makes you dizzy. I guess that helps to explain religion to as its easy when someone else thinks for you. If you don't learn to think for yourself you will be though, so be tough and learn to be the best possible you.

Its not easy that's for sure, but don't quit, just be true man and never regret it. Stand tall and say without fail that there is no heaven or god or demons or devil, all the bull that religion say is true, only maybe like 1% is true but I can find that without some man in a collar telling me what to do. Free your mind and come along, smile and put that badge right on, the label you have put a light upon, tell the world you are no longer a theist, just now call you atheist.

That shits dope yo, and you don't have to believe it. We got facts they got faith, we will help them see the light of the day, one day, they will come out of that hole they found themselves in maybe but until the war is won, we march each battle with logic and draw upon each other and others we have a shoulder you can cry on. We will carry on.

~Inpired by: Hopsin - Ill Mind of Hopsin 7~

Lets play the "No rules game."

You are now playing the no rules game. The rule is there is no rules. I just won.

You also have never been playing this game and you just won.

We both just lost and have always been playing this game.

Remember the rule? There wasn't any rules.

You can cheat but you also can't because there isn't any way to cheat but everyone always never cheats sometimes.

You don't want to play? That is fine, but also its the law that you play.

You might try to object that this is a paradox, but paradox is a rule, and there was no rule.

Wait is having no rule a rule, and if so then is it not a real rule but only a fake one?

The answer was yes, and also no.

Who won? Everyone and no one. Everywhere all the time but not at all.

Fun game isn't it? Yes, and also no.

Want to stop playing? You can't also you always stopped and we just started and we have always

played this game and will always be playing this game.

This is a hard game to win, yet its easy.

Want to play again?

I made a hard thing to read really easy to read.

So I was thinking about Thomas Aquinas's argument from motion, as one does. I was looking at it thinking, "Man this stuff is hard as bleep to understand, why can't we just make it easy to read?"
Then I was like "Who the bleep is we I'm the only one here in my brain!?" and then I was like "Guess I'll do it."

Anyway so here is the original hard to read thing: CLICK HERE TO SEE IT.

Pull that up side by side with my better easy to read version. I'm pretty sure I nailed it. Let me know if I didn't and I'll fix it, but do note I'm making it EASY to read so if your objection would make it harder to read I will not care about it so there.

Let me know what else you think is way to hard to read and I'll make it easy to read. :)
~~~~


What its about: Aquinas argues that because something moves is moved by something else that moved, god exists.

I. Argument begins with seeing that things move in real life. Due to some stuff don't think that the conclusion (god) is certain, even though the whole thing is written that way.

A. If the argument is correct, it might be true because its like science, basically its just possible, so don't say the conclusion doesn't follow even if it doesn't because its not that sort of argument.

B. The concept of moving vs not moving is further complicated by more words and ideas in this argument.

C: Here is the argument:

1: We see stuff move with our eyeballs. Stuff that might move and stuff that does move. Thins are acted on. (Note you see this stuff with your eyes so its a special type of argument)

2: Things that are moved are moved by other things. The thing that might move only moves when it really does move. (Tree comes from tree seed)

3: Unless there is a god, then there is no movement.  When you take away the moving you take away the possible moving. (What came first the chicken or the egg?)

a: (Eating real toast for real makes you more awake, because the toast can do that. Real bread can become real toast. Real water, dirt and air can become grain. Taking away any of those things leads to no toast so the person eating it can't be more awake because there is no toast to eat, and for this example we ignore other things that could make you awake.)

b: (Aquinas isn't rejecting infinity going backwards even though he seems to be.)

4. God exists.

II. Some strawman objections to this argument:

A. Contradiction on number 2. God isn't moved but has the maybe move does that mean god can't move? Well no because see its about what could be or is, and if god isn't that thing then no and using special pleading about what god is like makes it avoid the objection.

B. There are problems with moving and sometimes moving. Why is it assumed that this have a start to all this? Why is it assumed to have a start, middle and end? Is that natural? Or maybe we just think this way? Why does the universe have to begin?

C. Simple idea: is it more reasonable to think that stuff that moves has always been that way then to think that all of it came from nothing? Newtons first law helps this objection somehow:

A thing that isn't moving will stay not moving, and a thing that is moving will stay moving unless it is stopped by something else.

D: Moving and not moving are both not the default state of the universe. Big bang theory and Big Rip theory are less possible then steady state theory and loop/Cyclical theory and pulsating universe theory.

E: Stuff can be explained without other stuff maybe. Something about Einstein's theory of relativity can be an objection to this argument.

More stuff to read:

Blah link one.
Blah link two.
Blah link three.
~~~~

Reality is still real.

Solipsism can suck it.

Okay, well that was easy. Moving on.

Wait no. Its NEVER that easy right?

So, in my best Seinfeld voice "Whats the deal with solipsism?"

In essence it is thus: "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist." 

Why?

Well, because we know that our senses can fail, and do. We know people are born blind, or go blind. We know people can't hear or become deaf, we know that your own mind can lock you into such a state that your unable to view reality as the bell-curve rest of us sees it. 

Oh.

Well that sucks. But at least I'm - SOMETHING... right? I exist? Right? I'm pretty sure. I mean, I am saying "I" and "me" but what the bleep is me or I? I wake up, am I a different me then yesterday? Well, maybe but not as much as I am different then when I was eight. My word if only I could impart this wisdom & knowledge to my past self... but would he accept it or understand it? I'd like to think so, but who knows.

Solipsism

But its worse then the picture above. Your brain might not even look like that. You might just be code in some computer. Yet the computer is also something that might look so vastly different then anything we have ever seen that we wouldn't even know what the bleep we were looking at.

Red King

Perhaps its all a dream of the Red King. Now, in my mind this isn't what the Red King should look like, but darn it reality wants to negate my idea of it. Okay so go read the actual version of him, here is mine, he is all shades of red and looks like a king, and his dream is what reality is. If you wake him up you go poof. Yet, you are skeptical this is the case. Dare you test it and wake him?

Wind Fish

Everything but you and the dreamer is a dream. This is the story from Links Awaking. You have to wake the Wind Fish to win the game, but doing so means everyone vanishes. But you remember them, so - that is something right? I mean, they existed... sort of. They thought they did right? Is each person and creature you encounter just an aspect of the Wind Fish's mind? Who can say.

See also: The Thirteenth Floor, The Matrix , The Truman Show

Okay, okay! We get it, we can't really know reality is really real sort of, but - we experience "something" and that "something" seems real to us. Each and everyday. In fact, we tend to (one hopes) grow out of the idea that when you sleep the world vanish's that the universe is revolving around you. Even me with my high level of narcissism knows that is not the case!

Yet, we can't really say for 100% that reality is what we think it is, we can only get sort of maybe close. The scientific method seems pretty good at sorting out things, as does the method of informal & formal logic. At least they give us something to work with, mathematics seems to work pretty darn well. 

The problem I see with this is, that although it is true we can't be sure that what we experience is real to a 100% it also doesn't mean that we should then go on to believe that reality is in fact, not real, or an illusion. 

We feel pain. We feel loss. We feel a lot of things. We experience mundane and strange things. Some can be explained, some can not, we label everything but we do not always know that label is even a thing in and of itself.

Sure, you can call an experience "spiritual" but what is "spiritual"? What is a spirit? Do you have an example of it? If not, why call it that?

Yet, mostly we do not experience "God" or "Spiritual" or weird events, we typically have very "normal" lives, broadly speaking. 

I would want one day to talk to someone who was born without sight, and ask them how they can be sure anything they have been told is true. How can they know that blue is even a thing? Yet there must be some way they could know that, right?

Does the blind person have access to things I do not? I want to ask questions of all people of all sorts. I want answers. I think you might want answers as well.

One thing I've come to accept is that, there will always be questions, but not always answers, but always more questions.

What is it like to never be? What if I was born a woman? What if this, what if that? Why am I not a cat? Who knows. That is one of those things - just - we are born who we are, we didn't ask to be that way, some are "lucky" to be born in a place where they have food and education, others are not so "lucky" some are born without a brain, (!!) and do not last long - what is life from there view? Do they even perceive reality at all?

Reality is real. Its a hash thing at times. My own mind, whatever it is, couldn't and I dare say wouldn't have the mess that is out there. If someone made this for me and me alone, my word they have to be board by now! So, yes, I'm a jaded skeptic, but no I don't doubt that reality is real, or that you exist or that we all exist or that someday, we might even figure it all out.

Yep. I'm very sure that reality is still real.

....

Maybe.

Most likely.

Yep.

...

Look we can all agree lobsters exist... right?

Fixing Emigration: Civilian Corps

My brother and I got to talking about emigration after watching an episode of Designated Survivor. 

We then came up with the solution to illegals that are here, as well as those that want to come here. Because, we are just that awesome. ;)

Civilian Corps.

The military complex is huge, and it spends a ton of money already. So, you want to be a citizen of the USA? Well, service guarantees citizenship! The military already hires civilians - and there is room for low level work, I'm talking serous grunt work that you can't just give the enlisted to do (but they love to do that!) this could be house cleaning for on base house's, baby sitting (a much needed relief for military families!)

So, here is the deal. If you are an illegal in the USA you have a choice: go home, or sign up for the Civilian Corps (CC). That's it. That simple. You sign up you swear, under oath, and sign a binding contract that you will serve for (X) number of years, whatever we decide is needed.

Training is vastly different for the CC, the operation itself is a joint military op, as some of these people will be going to Navy - some Army, some Marine bases, and so on. They get beds. They get a full check up, and like boot camp, they all get a nice hair cut, not as crazy as the enlisted get, but they get it shortened, dental work is done if its major. They get a shower and chow. They all sleep in one giant bunk area just like boot. However, they don't march. They do not train like enlisted or officers. They are here to learn. They walk to a class, they learn English - learning English is a requirement and will help them assimilate into the culture and get around, it will open up job opportunists and not let them become ghettoized. They also learn basic skills, cooking, cleaning, basic maintenance of office and home machines and utilities, how to apply for jobs, fill out taxes, and other things that adults should know. We find out what they are good at, and we help them be better, but we also teach them to be a jack of all trades.

After training is done, they are transferred to whatever base needs them, they might be house keepers, hotel operations, maintenance, whatever is needed at a lower tier, and would cost far more if a regular civilian was hired to do the job. The kids also are part of this, there service is learning, they attend school and have doom rooms if old enough, younger kids are taken care of by others that have already passed the training on child care.

You do your job, you get food and board, and a bit of money is stored for you, in an account that will grow in interest and pay out when your service time has ended. Your payment is your room & board.

That's it. Your living area has some entertainment systems, you have access to a library. Your encouraged to keep learning.

At the end of service, you have a good deal of cash, and you are sworn in as a US Citizen, you know English, you have working skills, a resume, and reference's. In the year leading up to your end time is spent working to find you a job and place to live.

Old or young, anyone could serve. Disabled could serve with specialized jobs, and for those that are to disabled to work at all, they would have a job teaching, they would learn to be a teacher and teach from home if need be. There would be something for everyone.

If they break the law before there service is up, depending on what the law is or how sever it is, they risk getting booted home. This is why they learn the laws of the land and the laws of the place they are living in, and during the year leading to there end of service, the laws of wherever they might be going.

Kids also learn important skills and laws, ethics, and how to become a fully realized grown up.

If someone ends there mortal journey during there service, they get a fully payed for funeral, there family gets all the help they want or need.

For those seeking asylum, CC would be a way to fast track into getting into the USA. Anyone who shows up at the border wanting in can sign up for CC. If you don't want to sign up, you don't get in. If your caught coming in, your tossed back over the boarder, no questions asked.

This program would be for those here NOW and also as a easier way in for those wanting to get in latter. This would be made crystal clear, and the USA would make sure other countries knew this. Spread the word. We don't want you here illegally, if you want sanctuary and don't want to wait, sign up for CC. Maybe they could even come pick you up.

Would it cost a bit of money? Sure. The military could swing it, and it might reduce money spent now on civilian jobs. It also as I said would be a great help for military families, having free daycare, free in house child care, free home cleaning on or off base. THAT would really, really be great for moral and help the parents to go to work, and come back to there kids. The kids could be taken to and picked up from school on posts. The possibilities are almost endless really.

Of course, this makes far to much sense, so we will not do it. As most great ideas, it will remain just that. Ah well, its now on the net, maybe someone somewhere that can do something will read this and make it happen somehow... but I'm a skeptic, so I doubt it.

Comic time.

Lou's Unsafe Fried Chicken Place

Who doesn't love some internet drama? Sure, we like watching things go down, but not when it involves the best comedy channel of all time ever® as well as the best writer/Billy Mays look-alike Lou. No, no - I'm sorry but, we must draw the line somewhere. This far, no further. We can not withstand such a war, for it will destroy us all.

I made a video about Lou once: Click me to watch video. And, try as they might, We The Internet TV (WTIT from now on) could not make my video go viral. :(

Oh well. I guess fame can wait. Anyway. Today I was just minding my own business when I saw that horrible tweet of doom and gloom that will kill us all. I knew then.... I had to act.

I'm pretty good with logic, my whole channel is me pointing out logical fallacies (mostly) so I think I've got a pretty good grasp upon it. What I see from this post is several logical fallacies, and my hope is, by pointing them out here in this blog post, Lou and WTIT will give each other a hug and forget this nonsense before it blows up the multiverse as we know it.

First Lou says: 

Fried chicken is overrated.

This is a subjective statement. We can know this by the word "overrated" - Lou has offered us no data on how many people have rated fried chicken, nor if they are rating it higher then they should. There is not any method suggested anywhere of what the rating of said fried chicken "should" be set at. Even if Lou had a large sample size of people rating Fried Chicken, he could not hope to resolve where the rating "should" be as a standard to match it against any other food or type of food.

Therefor, although this seems at first glance to be a statement of fact, it can not be, because of the subjective word "overrated". However, if one wanted to push the point that this IS a statment of fact,  then WTIT should respond, "prove it" since the burden of proof would be upon Lou in full, as whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof.

Lou then says:

Don’t ”fight me.”

Fighting in this context could mean any number of things, but given that this a statement of subjective value, we can infer that Lou is referring to an argument - that is, a debate on the matter. He is telling us that his mind is made up on this view point, and that adds upon the idea that this is purely subjective, rather then objective. This is not an argument, Lou doesn't want to argue, he wants to put out this view, and that is that. He does not want your view, he does not need your view, one could speculate that he does not care about your view as well. However with the quotes around fight me we might speculate upon what Lou's intent here is. Does he mean to imply that fight me in this context is not in fact, a fight at all - it is the mere illusion of fight? Placing things in quotes adds to confusion here, and is further indication that this is a point of view, written perhaps late at night in the dark, alone and drunk, after failing to masturbate to futanari hentai for the tenth time. (NTTIAWWT)
Anyway, this is not a statement of fact. However, Lou then says this:

Just accept this truth.

Oh dear. This is a problem Lou, as we can not accept the statements you have made as being true - OTHER then to accept them being a taste selection that is true - TO YOU, and yes, that view is your view, and that is your true view - we have no reason to suspect that you are not being honest with this view point. But to suggest that this is "the truth" "this truth" and/or anything else reflecting the idea that this statement is MORE then subjective, is to fly off the rails into the purely illogical. Simply put, you've commented a Formal Fallacy: failure to give an argument. You've offered no proof to show it is true, thus we must assume that your saying that it is true for your view point, in your subjective tastes, and not true in reality. For we have no argument, no evidence, no data to look at. Lou's post shows therefor, a subjective view that is one he wants to keep, and for us to think is his subjective truth on the matter. We have no problem doing that. If, however, you wanted to assume that Lou was putting out a statement about reality, then your objection should be simply to prove it - nothing more or less, as Lou has not proven anything and offered no argument.

Now I must turn my attention to WTIT as they, sadly performed a logical fallacy.

The words in question are here:

bout of insanity.

Ah WTIT, you have committed the Ad Hominem fallacy. Rather then addressing Lou's lack of proof, formal fallacy &/or his argument (that he didn't have) you have attacked him the person. This also adds a second fallacy to the mix: Poisoning of the Well, as your making everything Lou says suspect because, after all - if he is not sane, then we can not trust anything he has said. Further, you also fail YOUR burden of proof, and also do not give any evidence to show that Lou is in fact, insane.

There is also this bit:

we will fight him.

You've now performed equivocation as well, the word fight as posted by Lou had quotes around it, suggesting some other fight that is non-real to some extent, although whatever the intent Lou had in putting quotes is something we can not know, what we do know is that without the quotes, the word fight is no longer the word "fight" that Lou posted, thus is a different meaning of that word, thus is equivocation, and also I would suggest a strawman argument as well. Your only response should have been "Prove it Lou" as that would be the acceptable and logical rebuttal to Lou's statement, if, and only if WTIT thought Lou was posting a statement of fact, rather then a statement of feeling/personal subjective view.

~~~~

Conclusion

~~~~

In Logic, when one has found one or more logical fallacies, then one must be skeptical of the conclusion, it might be true - but though the use of the logical process, we can not be sure that it is true, thus we are in doubt. When there is a debate at hand, should both party's arguments contain logical fallacies, you must be in doubt of both of there conclusions. No one wins, no one loses. This can of course be modified by rules the debaters agree to prior to the debate, but that is a different subject. Nonetheless, what we have here is two groups who have both failed in any sort of logical presentation and I submit they should be skeptical of there own stances, therefor they should agree to disagree and make up and hug. 

And if they do not...

I will send the lobsters.

(that would be an ad baculum fallacy dear reader, but its okay when I do them... because... uhhhh...)