First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.
It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.
You’re being intentionally evasive.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone.
It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.
Mirko_M said:I can only conclude that someone’s parents failed them miserably at birth.
So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:
briskbison55 said:over in America, the air is loaded with various substances that cloud people's reason and logic
That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.
By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques?
Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well.
I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor
That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?
Carol Lopez23 said:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!
Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.
NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.
It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.
Well, let us see what unfolds:
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:
The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.
What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.
Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.
There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.
Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.
Moving forward:
He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.
In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.
🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂
Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.
Where exactly is the insult in this situation?
Let us proceed further.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Quote:Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food:
Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself.
Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions:
(an example from the Chemtrails ii thread)
Here is another instance:
And also: |
I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.
I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.
It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:
Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.
In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:
At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.
Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:
Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:
To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.
It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.
I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.
Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.
When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?
Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:
Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.
Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:
It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.
🤦
I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.
It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.
I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.
Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835briskbison55 said:HE turned it back on me, accusing me of eating dogs, just like you and all the other fools keep telling me I eat corpses.
briskbison55 said:Did you recognize yourself in my post? I suppose I went a bit too far when I called that person an idiot. Who on earth would suggest that I eat dogs? If you still actually believe that about me, then maybe you’re just choosing to accept it—or perhaps you’ll decide to be a bit more careful with your accusations in the future?
briskbison55 said:It honestly disgusts me when someone decides to derail a serious conversation by making up ridiculous claims about people eating dogs. If you aren't capable of maintaining even a basic level of decency—and frankly, injecting such mindless nonsense isn't considered polite or permitted on this platform—then you should just move along.
(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?
Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.
These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.
Biljka112 said:From an airplane, you can really see just how much stupidity and lack of coordination is happening down there.
Biljka112 said:I honestly can't tell if your eyesight is failing you or if you’re just being plain foolish.
This cell phone video is essentially a masterclass in human stupidity.
I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋
