Proof of the supernatural

[Magical Realist]

So you are admitting I never said I prefer a doctor that pretends to know everything. That means you accused me of something falsely, and then further morally devalued me as someone foolish who would choose an impractical course of action. You're just digging yourself deeper in your hole. Just quit talking about how I am. Flaming people is NOT a necessary part of debating, and in fact is off-topic. We are not talking about how each of us ARE. We are talking about the evidence for the paranormal. Stick to the topic, ok?

 

[Kittamaru]

So you are admitting I never said I prefer a doctor that pretends to know everything. That means you accused me of something falsely, and then further morally devalued me as someone foolish who would choose an impractical course of action. You're just digging yourself deeper in your hole. Just quite talking about how I am. Flaming people is NOT a necessary part of debating, and in fact is off-topic. We are not talking about each of us ARE. We are talking about the evidence for the paranormal. Stick to the topic, ok?

You are incorrigible... and a liar.

You showed, through what you said, that you felt a doctor who had to look something up, do research, or otherwise admit when he did not know something was, by your own words:

a really shitty doctor.

Thus, the only LOGICAL conclusion is, you prefer a doctor who pretends to know everything.

Or, is there another conclusion to be drawn from this? Please, enlighten me - what other conclusion could one make from that?

As for why this is important: it is important because your pathological dishonesty, as a character trait, makes it nigh impossible to hold a fact-based debate with you. It isn't flaming, nor is it off-topic, especially considering how often it comes into play whenever you are involved. You seem to be quite literally incapable of sticking with actual facts and instead make up stories left and right (or do you still cling to the belief that measles is perfectly fine?)

 

[Magical Realist]

It's obvious that your pathological reliance on intellectual dishonesty has rendered you incapable of answering even the most basic of questions when you are caught weaving your webs of lies... how sad. Billvon is not attacking your ability to form interpersonal relationships - what he said is not an attack at all.

Apparently he screwed up when he said I said that. So again another false accusation about me saying something and another flaming inference about what this says about me as a person. Totally uncalled for.

Again - calling a horse a horse is not an insult...

You're still attacking my character, calling me now intellectually dishonest. What's your problem? Do you think ad homs help your argument? They don't.

*note* Also of note - you yourself are the one that set up the false dichotomy that resulted in seeming like you would prefer doctors who tell you to "GTFO" rather than ones who admit they need to research something.

LOL! Billvon even admits now I didn't say it. You should probably wait for people to confirm their claims before jumping in and trying to rationalize them with BS.

 

[Kittamaru]

Apparently he screwed up when he said I said that. So again another false accusation about me saying something and another flaming inference about what this says about me as a person. Totally uncalled for.

You're still attacking my character, calling me now intellectually dishonest. What's your problem? Do you think ad homs help your argument? They don't.

LOL! Billvon even admits now I didn't say it. You should probably wait for people to confirm their claims before jumping in and trying to rationalize them with BS.

Now you showcase your incomprehension of basic english:

I didn't say here that you said you prefer doctors who say "GTFO". Nor did I say Billvon was right in what he said. You did, however, showcase a preference (via a false dichotomy) that you disdain doctors who don't "know it all".

Perhaps I should start using smaller words for your benefit... or is your "misunderstanding" more dishonesty on your part, hm?

 

[Magical Realist]

You are incorrigible... and a liar.

You showed, through what you said, that you felt a doctor who had to look something up, do research, or otherwise admit when he did not know something was, by your own words:


Thus, the only LOGICAL conclusion is, you prefer a doctor who pretends to know everything.

Or, is there another conclusion to be drawn from this? Please, enlighten me - what other conclusion could one make from that?

As for why this is important: it is important because your pathological dishonesty, as a character trait, makes it nigh impossible to hold a fact-based debate with you. It isn't flaming, nor is it off-topic, especially considering how often it comes into play whenever you are involved. You seem to be quite literally incapable of sticking with actual facts and instead make up stories left and right (or do you still cling to the belief that measles is perfectly fine?)

You just can't quit insulting me can you? You lie about me claiming something, and then attack my character for it. Then I'm intellectually dishonest, and now I'm a liar. Finally you flame me as pathological, as if I'm insane. You know I have the right to ignore you don't you?

 

[Kittamaru]

You just can't quit insulting me can you. You lie about me claiming something, and then attack my character for it. Then I'm intellectually dishonest, and now I'm a liar. Finally you flame me as pathological, as if I'm insane. You know I have the right to ignore you don't you?

Further evidence that you fail to comprehend basic English...

Allow me to open your eyes:

path·o·log·i·cal
ˌpaTHəˈläjək(ə)l/
adjective

1. of or relating to pathology.
   "the interpretation of pathological studies"
   • involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease.
     "pathological changes associated with senile dementia"
     synonyms:morbid, diseased
     "a pathological condition"
   • informal
     compulsive; obsessive.
     "a pathological gambler"
     synonyms:compulsive, obsessive, inveterate, habitual, persistent, chronic,hardened, confirmed
     "a pathological liar"

Now, explain to me where "pathological liar" has anything to do with insanity...

 

[Magical Realist]

Further evidence that you fail to comprehend basic English...

Allow me to open your eyes:

path·o·log·i·cal
ˌpaTHəˈläjək(ə)l/
adjective

1. of or relating to pathology.
   "the interpretation of pathological studies"
   • involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease.
     "pathological changes associated with senile dementia"
     synonyms:morbid, diseased
     "a pathological condition"
   • informal
     compulsive; obsessive.
     "a pathological gambler"
     synonyms:compulsive, obsessive, inveterate, habitual, persistent, chronic,hardened, confirmed
     "a pathological liar"

Now, explain to me where "pathological liar" has anything to do with insanity...

"Involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease."

 

[Kittamaru]

"Involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease."

Again, reading is important, or did you just ignore where it said:
compulsive; obsessive.
"a pathological gambler"

Also - so, any and every kind of "mental disease" is now insanity? I take offense to that, as I suffer from a mental disorder (ADHD)

 

[paddoboy]

. That means you accused me of something falsely, and then further morally devalued me as someone foolish who would choose an impractical course of action.

In my opinion no one has done more to morally devalue you, then yourself, as your record on this forum shows, and is highlighted by the extremely stupid claim that science has not ever benefited mankind.

 

[spidergoat]

The voice is recorded from a policeman's body cam! "Why won't someone help?" Policeman even responds to voice. The voice occurs at the 1:58 increment. Note audio is always going to be less clear and loud than really being there. Obviously the voice and what it said was clear to the rescuers. Audio analysts should clean up the background noise and amplify the voice to really hear it. Solid proof the voice was REAL!

http://www.reddit.com/r/Paranormal/comments/2zbwga/can_someone_isolate_the_audio_from_158205_its/

I heard some vague yelling at the time you mention. Pretty weak evidence to base your extraordinary assertion on.

 

[Magical Realist]

In my opinion no one has done more to morally devalue you, then yourself, as your record on this forum shows, and is highlighted by the extremely stupid claim that science has not ever benefited mankind.

Why are you flaming me as stupid now? Do you think that helps your argument that the paranormal can never occur. I don't see the connection there.

 

[Magical Realist]

I heard some vague yelling at the time you mention. Pretty weak evidence to base your extraordinary assertion on.

6 men also heard that voice coming from inside the car. Extraordinary evidence indeed!

 

[paddoboy]

Why are you flaming me as stupid now? Do you think that helps your argument that the paranormal can never occur. I don't see the connection there.

You claim others are morally devaluing you.
I'm showing that you have done that yourself with the most outrageous claim I have ever seen on a scientific forum.
The same inference can then be extrapolated to your belief in ghosts goblins poltergeists and all things that go bump in the night.

 

[Magical Realist]

Apparently nurses experience alot of paranormal phenomena. Here's 184 pages of such eyewitness accounts by nurses:

http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/whats-your-best-108202.html

 

[Magical Realist]

You claim others are morally devaluing you.
I'm showing that you have done that yourself with the most outrageous claim I have ever seen on a scientific forum.
The same inference can then be extrapolated to your belief in ghosts goblins poltergeists and all things that go bump in the night.

I didn't say I'm stupid. You did. YOU are devaluing ME. Why are you doing this? Is this thread about bashing me, or about proof of the supernatural?

 

[Kittamaru]

Why are you flaming me as stupid now? Do you think that helps your argument that the paranormal can never occur. I don't see the connection there.

Please point out where he said you were stupid... because reading the text on screen:

In my opinion no one has done more to morally devalue you, then yourself, as your record on this forum shows, and is highlighted by the extremely stupid claim that science has not ever benefited mankind.

The only thing he called stupid was your claim, not you.

6 men also heard that voice coming from inside the car. Extraordinary evidence indeed!

Evidence...

I didn't say I'm stupid. You did. YOU are devaluing ME. Why are you doing this? Is this thread about bashing me, or about proof of the supernatural?

Again, where did he say you were stupid? Please provide a quote... after all, this is your claim that someone is calling you stupid. Or, are you just lying again?

 

[Magical Realist]

Please point out where he said you were stupid... because reading the text on screen:




The only thing he called stupid was your claim, not you.



Evidence...

Again, where did he say you were stupid? Please provide a quote... after all, this is your claim that someone is calling you stupid. Or, are you just lying again?

He said my claim was stupid, meaning I'm stupid for making it. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Kittamaru]

He said my claim was stupid, meaning I'm stupid for making it. Stupid is as stupid does.

Interesting... so by your logic, no matter what, if someone disagrees with your theory/post/claim, they disagree with you. If they think your claim is racist, they think you are racist. If they think you have made a bad suggestion, they think you are a bad person. If they think you have posted an argument, you must necessarily agree with that argument. If they attack your argument, by your logic, they are attacking you...

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting... so by your logic, no matter what, if someone disagrees with your theory/post/claim, they disagree with you. If they think your claim is racist, they think you are racist. If they think you have made a bad suggestion, they think you are a bad person. If they think you have posted an argument, you must necessarily agree with that argument. If they attack your argument, by your logic, they are attacking you...

Is that what I said? I simply stated that calling someone's actions stupid is to call that person stupid. A claim isn't a conscious entity. It can't be stupid. Only the person making it can be stupid. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Daecon]

You said it.

(See what I did there?)