OT: Axel Muganwa Rudakubana's case NOT forgotten

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Hello there!

It has been two weeks since Axel Muganwa Rudakubana
enriched British culture in the UK. The enrichment
process caused three little girls to die by the
knife of the mass murderer. Ten other people were
victims of attempted murder and were sent to
hospital in critical condition.

I am convinced that the UK authorities have spoken to
Axel Muganwa Rudakubana every day during these
two weeks. By now they surely know the murderer's
*MOTIVE*.

However, the truth about the motive is kept secret
from the public. This case is extremely important
socially so the ordinary folks have the right to
know what is going on here.

My questions that are forbidden in the Finnish
discussion forums:

1) *What* is the killer's real motive?
2) *Why* has the motive been kept as a secret?
3) *Who* benefits from this secrecy?
4) *Are* the authorities scared that the truth
about the motive could cause additional
riots and instability in the UK society?

The public has the right to be informed in this
extremely significant case. I demand that the
truth about Axel Muganwa Rudakubana's motive
shall be published right now, without any
additional delays.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Hello there!
It has been two weeks since Axel Muganwa Rudakubana
enriched British culture in the UK. The enrichment
process caused three little girls to die by the
knife of the mass murderer. Ten other people were
victims of attempted murder and were sent to
hospital in critical condition.
I am convinced that the UK authorities have spoken to
Axel Muganwa Rudakubana every day during these
two weeks. By now they surely know the murderer's
*MOTIVE*.
However, the truth about the motive is kept secret
from the public. This case is extremely important
socially so the ordinary folks have the right to
know what is going on here.
My questions that are forbidden in the Finnish
1) *What* is the killer's real motive?
2) *Why* has the motive been kept as a secret?
3) *Who* benefits from this secrecy?
4) *Are* the authorities scared that the truth
about the motive could cause additional
riots and instability in the UK society?
The public has the right to be informed in this
extremely significant case. I demand that the
truth about Axel Muganwa Rudakubana's motive
shall be published right now, without any
additional delays.
br,
KK

I doubt you'd believe anything they said anyway, unless it
happened to agree with your desired outcome. You sound like a
deranged Trumper.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise
I doubt you'd believe anything they said anyway, unless it
happened to agree with your desired outcome. You sound like a
deranged Trumper.

What? You are a real sicko, defending the disgusting
mass murderer and blaming honest citizens for wanting
to know the *truth*.

We all need to know the motive.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
I doubt you'd believe anything they said anyway, unless it
happened to agree with your desired outcome. You sound like a
deranged Trumper.

What? You are a real sicko, defending the disgusting
mass murderer and blaming honest citizens for wanting
to know the *truth*.
We all need to know the motive.
br,
KK

You're raving again, Kalevi. It's obvious that this was a
horrible crime. It is not, however, any kind of emergency
situation that the public needs constant updates on. Particularly
not for someone in irrelevant Finland. Do you want the
authorities to do something unusual or possibly illegal and
possibly damage the case just to satisfy your sick fascination
with mass murderers?

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise
You're raving again, Kalevi. It's obvious that this was a
horrible crime. It is not, however, any kind of emergency
situation that the public needs constant updates on. Particularly
not for someone in irrelevant Finland. Do you want the
authorities to do something unusual or possibly illegal and
possibly damage the case just to satisfy your sick fascination
with mass murderers?

This case is extremely important socially. We need
updates and honest information about Axel Muganwa
Rudakubanu.

When I posed my questions on a Finnish discussion forum,
I was immediately accused of being "a racist", "a nazi",
"a neo-nazi", "a schizophrenic" and so on. All that crap
even though I do not subscribe to any political doctrines,
left or right, or anything for that matter. I am not
a racist either.

But the leftist sickos just cannot face the horrible truth
about Axel Muganwa Rudakubana!

This crime is not irrelevant in Finland. We too have far
too many culture enrichers who commit crimes and turn
our society into worse. We will not be silenced any more!

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
You're raving again, Kalevi. It's obvious that this was a
horrible crime. It is not, however, any kind of emergency
situation that the public needs constant updates on.
Particularly
not for someone in irrelevant Finland. Do you want the
authorities to do something unusual or possibly illegal and
possibly damage the case just to satisfy your sick fascination
with mass murderers?

This case is extremely important socially. We need
updates and honest information about Axel Muganwa
Rudakubanu.
When I posed my questions on a Finnish discussion forum,
I was immediately accused of being "a racist", "a nazi",
"a neo-nazi", "a schizophrenic" and so on. All that crap
even though I do not subscribe to any political doctrines,
left or right, or anything for that matter. I am not
a racist either.
But the leftist sickos just cannot face the horrible truth
about Axel Muganwa Rudakubana!
This crime is not irrelevant in Finland. We too have far
too many culture enrichers who commit crimes and turn
our society into worse. We will not be silenced any more!
br,
KK

If it were the kind of imminent crisis that required you be
updated there'd be a lot more incidents of crimes of this
magnitude or worse. Face it, the guy is a nut. I don't think we
can draw any generalized conclusions about why such people do
these things. Why did Anders Breivik commit quantitatively worse
crimes in Norway in 2011? Apparently it was to bring attention to
his manifesto which called for mass deportations of muslims? Now
does that make any sense to you? Should we draw conclusions that
those of Norwegian descent are by default mass murderers? Or
maybe of all Christians or neo-pagan Odinists?

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise
If it were the kind of imminent crisis that required you be
updated there'd be a lot more incidents of crimes of this
magnitude or worse.

Hey, he murdered three little children, attempted to murder
eight more children and two more adults. Not many crimes
can be worse than what Axel Muganwa Rudakubana has committed.

Post by jdeluise
Face it, the guy is a nut.

Are you claiming that some kind of mental illness was his
motive? If so, why is the truth being held back? We absolutely
must know his motive.

Post by jdeluise
I don't think we
can draw any generalized conclusions about why such people do
these things.

Well, we do not know his motive yet because apparently the UK
authorities want to keep it as a secret. Maybe they know it
is something horrible that could cause even more riots on
the streets of UK?

Post by jdeluise
Why did Anders Breivik commit quantitatively worse
crimes in Norway in 2011? Apparently it was to bring attention to
his manifesto which called for mass deportations of muslims? Now
does that make any sense to you?

Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Post by jdeluise
Should we draw conclusions that those of Norwegian
descent are by default mass murderers? Or
maybe of all Christians or neo-pagan Odinists?

I don't think so. Why should we? I never made any claims
about Rwandan people in general. To recap, I just asked
the following questions:

1) *What* is the killer's real motive?
2) *Why* has the motive been kept as a secret?
3) *Who* benefits from this secrecy?
4) *Are* the authorities scared that the truth
about the motive could cause additional
riots and instability in the UK society?

These questions are immediately banned and censored
on Finnish discussion forums.

In Finland, we have no free speech or free press
for that matter. I am sad to say that Finland
resembles North-Korea in many ways. USA can be
proud of its free speech.

br,
KK

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way. He should be jailed for life.

But he had correctly identified the greatest enemy of
the civilized world, that is all I am saying. Some
people do not have the guts and honesty to admit it.

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.

Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did approve.

Jesus.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.

Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did approve.

Breivik should not have used violence. Instead he should have
founded a political party/movement whose goal is to make
islam illegal in Norway. That is the correct way to proceed.

What if someone claims that we cannot outlaw religion because
of freedom of religion? United Nations says so.

Fuck the freedom of religion. Fuck the fools of UN.

You certainly can outlaw religions, just like they
have outlawed scientology in Germany. In fact they
even refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion
- they have labeled it as a dangerous extremist
movement or a hoax of some kind. That is very
respectable.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.

Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did
approve.

Breivik should not have used violence. Instead he should have
founded a political party/movement whose goal is to make
islam illegal in Norway. That is the correct way to proceed.

You're presuming he was sane. Clearly he isn't. Just like I'm
sure "Axel" isn't either. It's just not normal behavior for a
human in any society or religion to go around murdering children.
Hell, one of my closest friends growing up was a first generation
muslim. He never stabbed anyone, expressed any desire to, nor was
he encouraged to do so at his mosque to my knowledge.

Look, I get that you're angry about this but it's foolhardy to
jump to conclusions before you know the facts. The last thing you
want is for the authorities to screw up the case by leaking
prejudicial information to the public before the trial. Let it
play out a bit.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
What if someone claims that we cannot outlaw religion because
of freedom of religion? United Nations says so.
Fuck the freedom of religion. Fuck the fools of UN.
You certainly can outlaw religions, just like they
have outlawed scientology in Germany. In fact they
even refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion
- they have labeled it as a dangerous extremist
movement or a hoax of some kind. That is very
respectable.
br,
KK

Well if they can make religion illegal I suppose they can make
atheism or agnosticism illegal too. Would that make you happy?
Banning religion is not effective, it just drives said religion
underground where it festers and generates more extremists.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.

Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did approve.

Breivik should not have used violence. Instead he should have
founded a political party/movement whose goal is to make
islam illegal in Norway. That is the correct way to proceed.

You're presuming he was sane.

What makes you think so? I only suggested what he should have
done, making no claims about his mental stability at all. My
advice was meant as a general point as well in case someone
wants to protect western civilization against primitive
barbarism.

Post by jdeluise
Clearly he isn't. Just like I'm sure "Axel" isn't either.

So you still insist that mental illness of some kind is the
motive behind the killings. UK authorities know the truth
but choose to stay silent about it. Why on earth? If mental
illness is indeed the only real motive, why should it be
kept as a secret? It makes no sense at all.

Post by jdeluise
It's just not normal behavior for a
human in any society or religion to go around murdering children.

It is self-evident that it is not "normal", yet e.g. suicide bombers
have been brain-washed to believe that they are doing the right
thing and will be rewarded in Paradise when they die. Those bastards
are not necessarily insane, but just brain-washed losers who
cannot think for themselves.

Not so many years ago, a suicide bomber like this killed many
children who attended some kind of concert in the UK. I cannot
remember the artist... Wait, let me google a bit...

It was in Manchester in 2017:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/world/article152081977.html

22 died, many more got injured. Who was to blame for this horrific
deed? The "religion of peace", of course.

Post by jdeluise
Hell, one of my closest friends growing up was a first generation
muslim. He never stabbed anyone, expressed any desire to, nor was
he encouraged to do so at his mosque to my knowledge.

So what? All countries where islam is in power are total, utter
shithole countries that are completely sick.

Post by jdeluise
Look, I get that you're angry about this but it's foolhardy to
jump to conclusions before you know the facts. The last thing you
want is for the authorities to screw up the case by leaking
prejudicial information to the public before the trial. Let it
play out a bit.

Revealing the motive cannot "screw up the case", but clearly
the motive is something that the authorities do not want to
disclose. My best bet at this time is that they are afraid of
more rioting as a consequence of publishing the motive. So
they choose to stay silent.

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
What if someone claims that we cannot outlaw religion because
of freedom of religion? United Nations says so.
Fuck the freedom of religion. Fuck the fools of UN.
You certainly can outlaw religions, just like they
have outlawed scientology in Germany. In fact they
even refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion
- they have labeled it as a dangerous extremist
movement or a hoax of some kind. That is very
respectable.
br,
KK

Well if they can make religion illegal I suppose they can make
atheism or agnosticism illegal too.

You certainly could in theory, provided that you could prove
that they are dangerous extremist positions that cause harm
to the society. But you cannot prove such a thing.

What do you think happens to non-religious people in islamic
countries? Do you realize atheism is a reason for death
penalty in those countries? That is so sick and disgusting!

Post by jdeluise
Would that make you happy?
Banning religion is not effective, it just drives said religion
underground where it festers and generates more extremists.

There is no better alternative. Germans did wisely to ban
scientology. Next they should ban islam.

br,
KK

[Sawfish]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.

Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did approve.

Breivik should not have used violence. Instead he should have
founded a political party/movement whose goal is to make
islam illegal in Norway. That is the correct way to proceed.

You're presuming he was sane.  Clearly he isn't.  Just like I'm sure
"Axel" isn't either.  It's just not normal behavior for a human in any
society or religion to go around murdering children. Hell, one of my
closest friends growing up was a first generation muslim.  He never
stabbed anyone, expressed any desire to, nor was he encouraged to do
so at his mosque to my knowledge.
Look, I get that you're angry about this but it's foolhardy to jump to
conclusions before you know the facts.  The last thing you want is for
the authorities to screw up the case by leaking prejudicial
information to the public before the trial.  Let it play out a bit.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
What if someone claims that we cannot outlaw religion because
of freedom of religion? United Nations says so.
Fuck the freedom of religion. Fuck the fools of UN.
You certainly can outlaw religions, just like they
have outlawed scientology in Germany. In fact they
even refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion
- they have labeled it as a dangerous extremist
movement or a hoax of some kind. That is very
respectable.
br,
KK

Well if they can make religion illegal I suppose they can make atheism
or agnosticism illegal too.  Would that make you happy? Banning
religion is not effective, it just drives said religion underground
where it festers and generates more extremists.

I think all your reasoning is correct, jd, but I'll come at it from a
different, more utilitarian angle.

Hypothetically, if a polity made religion X illegal, there would, as you
say, covert adherents, but from the POV of the persecuting polity, it
provides an official legal charge to justify arrest and punishment. It
can be portrayed publicly as a sort of rightful action against
individuals who are deemed adherents of X, making it seem reasonable.

[TT]

You're presuming he was sane.  Clearly he isn't.  Just like I'm sure
"Axel" isn't either.  It's just not normal behavior for a human in any
society or religion to go around murdering children.

Yes. Although it's probably ok for muslims if the victim is Israeli.

Hell, one of my
closest friends growing up was a first generation muslim.

No such thing, imo.

[Sawfish]

Post by TT

You're presuming he was sane.  Clearly he isn't.  Just like I'm sure
"Axel" isn't either.  It's just not normal behavior for a human in
any society or religion to go around murdering children.

Yes. Although it's probably ok for muslims if the victim is Israeli.

Hell, one of my closest friends growing up was a first generation
muslim.

No such thing, imo.

Muslims don't have *friends*. It's prohibited by sharia law.

[jdeluise]

Post by TT

You're presuming he was sane.  Clearly he isn't.  Just like I'm sure
"Axel" isn't either.  It's just not normal behavior for a human
in
any society or religion to go around murdering children.

Yes. Although it's probably ok for muslims if the victim is
Israeli.

Hell, one of my closest friends growing up was a first
generation
muslim.

No such thing, imo.

What do you mean by that?

[TT]

Post by jdeluise

Post by TT

You're presuming he was sane.  Clearly he isn't.  Just like I'm sure
"Axel" isn't either.  It's just not normal behavior for a human in
any society or religion to go around murdering children.

Yes. Although it's probably ok for muslims if the victim is Israeli.

Hell, one of my closest friends growing up was a first generation
muslim.

No such thing, imo.

What do you mean by that?

I don't think a 1st gen muslim is a real muslim, rather a
copycat/brainwashee. One has to have had generations of child marriages,
stoning of wives and cutting heads of infidels before becoming a real
muslim. To know what it really is about.

Although some Finnish white muslim wives almost reached there,
travelling to Isis caliphate to help their husbands behead the infidels.
Then again, some also preached about caliphate in Finland so I suspect
it may have been some sort of Red Army Faction type left wing
enlightenment thing. There's something odd about far left... they are in
general *very* favourable breeding ground to extreme ideologies. Decade
after decade they always jump head first to latest isms.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.

Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did approve.

Breivik should not have used violence. Instead he should have
founded a political party/movement whose goal is to make
islam illegal in Norway. That is the correct way to proceed.
What if someone claims that we cannot outlaw religion because
of freedom of religion? United Nations says so.
Fuck the freedom of religion. Fuck the fools of UN.
You certainly can outlaw religions, just like they
have outlawed scientology in Germany. In fact they
even refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion
- they have labeled it as a dangerous extremist
movement or a hoax of some kind. That is very
respectable.

Good luck.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Good luck.

Pelle, for the sake of argument, let's consider
a hypothetical thought experiment. If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists
or agnostics in a blink of an eye, would you do so?

Or do you love islam so much that you would
preserve it? I need an honest answer from you.

Before answering, I would suggest that you
carefully examine countries like Saudi-Arabia,
Iran, Irak, Afganistan, Syria, Somalia and so on.

What do you say?

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Good luck.

Pelle, for the sake of argument, let's consider
a hypothetical thought experiment. If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists
or agnostics in a blink of an eye, would you do so?
Or do you love islam so much that you would
preserve it? I need an honest answer from you.

My honest answer: It's a mind-blowingly stupid question. Stop smoking
mushrooms and get some fresh air.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Good luck.

Pelle, for the sake of argument, let's consider
a hypothetical thought experiment. If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists
or agnostics in a blink of an eye, would you do so?
Or do you love islam so much that you would
preserve it? I need an honest answer from you.

My honest answer: It's a mind-blowingly stupid question.

When I constructed my thought experiment, I was
pretty sure that you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the
leftists are very afraid of facing the facts.

They usually hate the truths and try to fill our
heads with their lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you
support, Pelle. It was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Stop smoking mushrooms and get some fresh air.

I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
When I constructed my thought experiment, I was
pretty sure that you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the
leftists are very afraid of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our
heads with their lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you
support, Pelle. It was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!

Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma. It's not worth a
thoughtful response.

You're just making a fool of yourself.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise
Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma.

There is absolute nothing "false" about it. It is a
perfectly valid thought experiment that tells
a whole lot about your values and ethics.

I can construct another thought experiment for you
that is structurally the same as my original one:

If you were given magical powers to remove
all suffering forever, would you do so, or would
you keep things the way they are now?

Nothing "false" about hypothetical questions
like these. I ain't no fool, studied theoretical
philosophy in the University of Helsinki as my
major. Never graduated, but I got perfect scores
out of all philosophy exams.

Post by jdeluise
It's not worth a thoughtful response.

Why do you say so?

Post by jdeluise
You're just making a fool of yourself.

Absolutely not. Pelle made a fool out of
himself by refusing to answer an honest
hypothetical question.

br,
KK

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
I can construct another thought experiment for you
If you were given magical powers to remove
all suffering forever, would you do so, or would
you keep things the way they are now?

Here's another structurally equivalent thought experiment
that is designed to test how much an individual values
artistic creativity:

If you were magically given immense talents to compose
musical pieces on the condition that you would spend
the rest of your life in a wheelchair, would you accept
the musical creativity, or would you rather stay the way
you are now?

Do you get it? As you can see, a question such as this
can be used to measure how much you value having
musical talent. We know the question is not realistic
but it works just the same.

Again, nothing "false" about hypothetical questions
like these.

br,
KK

[TT]

When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure that you
would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are very afraid
of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with their lies
and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support, Pelle. It
was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!

Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma.  It's not worth a
thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.

It's a valid question. I think any remotely sane Christian/Hindu/atheist
etc would wish that Islam didn't exist.

Unless they're uncurably woke or very naive.

[jdeluise]

Post by TT

When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure
that
you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are very
afraid of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with
their
lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support,
Pelle. It
was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!

Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma.  It's not
worth a
thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.

It's a valid question. I think any remotely sane
Christian/Hindu/atheist etc would wish that Islam didn't exist.
Unless they're uncurably woke or very naive.

It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

In any case, the facts seem to suggest the kid was more likely to
urged to kill by Jesus than Allah. His family was christian and
he went to church, right? You two were wrong about the kid being
a migrant, and you were likely wrong about him being muslim. So
now in your minds it's some kind of vast liberal, gubmint
conspiracy. Pretty pathetic.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))

It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it. Please read my two
follow-ups and you will find out that the question
is perfect is all right.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))
It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it.

Most logical fallacies are just that. So I correctly called it.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Please read my two
follow-ups and you will find out that the question
is perfect is all right.

Your two followups were even more incoherent and irrelevant. Not
worth the time to address them.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))
It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it.

Most logical fallacies are just that. So I correctly called it.

You failed. You probably do not even know what a
logical fallacy is.

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Please read my two
follow-ups and you will find out that the question
is perfect is all right.

Your two followups were even more incoherent and irrelevant. Not
worth the time to address them.

Hahahahaha!

I *know* why Pelle chose not to reply to me. His
mind is brain-washed by the Woke ideology so the
question is extremely painful for him. You too!

Hahahaa! :-)

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))
It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it.

Jesus. Finland has a dark future. Philosophy dpt drop-outs just don't
cut it.

[TT]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

It's not a valid question.  It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))
It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it.

Jesus. Finland has a dark future. Philosophy dpt drop-outs just don't
cut it.

Says a Brit reject who was replaced by a negro.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Jesus. Finland has a dark future. Philosophy dpt drop-outs just don't
cut it.

You loser Woke idiot! I worked for over 20 years in the University
of Helsinki doing some serious IT work.

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by TT

When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure that
you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are very
afraid of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with their
lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support, Pelle. It
was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!

Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma.  It's not worth a
thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.

It's a valid question. I think any remotely sane
Christian/Hindu/atheist etc would wish that Islam didn't exist.
Unless they're uncurably woke or very naive.

It's not a valid question.  It was a logical fallacy framed by someone
with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

Where was the logical fallacy?

In any case, the facts seem to suggest the kid was more likely to urged
to kill by Jesus than Allah.  His family was christian and he went to
church, right?

I haven't heard so. That claim is probably based on statistics, not much
else. btw, in Ruanda their most common religion is christianity/animism,
I read somewhere.

You two were wrong about the kid being a migrant, and

I don't think so.

Loading Image...

[jdeluise]

Post by TT

Post by TT

When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure that
you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are
very
afraid of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with their
lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support,
Pelle. It
was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!

Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma.  It's not
worth a
thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.

It's a valid question. I think any remotely sane
Christian/Hindu/atheist etc would wish that Islam didn't
exist.
Unless they're uncurably woke or very naive.

It's not a valid question.  It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

Where was the logical fallacy?

I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument
down to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more
complicated. I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage
in "black or white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take
positions on almost every topic here.

Post by TT

In any case, the facts seem to suggest the kid was more likely to
urged to kill by Jesus than Allah.  His family was christian
and he
went to church, right?

I haven't heard so. That claim is probably based on statistics,
not
much else. btw, in Ruanda their most common religion is
christianity/animism, I read somewhere.

So you haven't been following the case?

Post by TT

You two were wrong about the kid being a migrant, and

I don't think so.
https://img.ifunny.co/images/fbfd2dda38ed8f1cfdad367fbbdd73a22a6aba74e386bad08259ba1e236dc781_1.jpg

Ok *skript...

[TT]

Post by TT

Post by TT

When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure that
you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are very
afraid of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with their
lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support, Pelle. It
was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!

Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma.  It's not worth a
thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.

It's a valid question. I think any remotely sane
Christian/Hindu/atheist etc would wish that Islam didn't exist.
Unless they're uncurably woke or very naive.

It's not a valid question.  It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.

Where was the logical fallacy?

I already said it was a false dilemma.  He boiled his argument down to a
binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.  I don't
expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or white" thinking
too.  It's evident from how you take positions on almost every topic here.

It wasn't reality based question. I think these sort of hypothetical
questions are quite common in ethics etc.

Maybe it was a test.

Post by TT

In any case, the facts seem to suggest the kid was more likely to
urged to kill by Jesus than Allah.  His family was christian and he
went to church, right?

I haven't heard so. That claim is probably based on statistics, not
much else. btw, in Ruanda their most common religion is
christianity/animism, I read somewhere.

So you haven't been following the case?

Not lately. I may have read about christianity, but nowadays you can't
believe everything you read... I think the original argument was that
most people in Rwanda are christians so he was probably a christian. My
interest on the matter of his religion disappeared when I read about
Christianity AND animism.

Post by TT

You two were wrong about the kid being a migrant, and

I don't think so.
https://img.ifunny.co/images/fbfd2dda38ed8f1cfdad367fbbdd73a22a6aba74e386bad08259ba1e236dc781_1.jpg

Ok *skript...

You can add Cardiff on the next pic.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by TT
It wasn't reality based question. I think these sort of hypothetical
questions are quite common in ethics etc.

That is correct. It was a "what *IF" case.

Post by TT
Maybe it was a test.

Yes, of course it was a test. I knew that Pelle will
be unable to answer because of his cowardice. He
buys the Woke ideology 100% so the question was
extremely painful for Pelle to handle.

jdeluise has shown that he is not a very bright
thinker. He just does not understand.

br,
KK

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument
down to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more
complicated. I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage
in "black or white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take
positions on almost every topic here.

I did not "boil it down" to binary choice. It was an IF-statement:
What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.

According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some
imagination.

My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.

jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument
down to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more
complicated. I don't expect you to get it, you regularly
engage
in "black or white" thinking too. It's evident from how you
take
positions on almost every topic here.

I did not "boil it down" to binary choice. It was an
What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some
imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.

But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following
condition "Or do you love islam so much that you would preserve
it?" So you've given two choices: either he eliminates Islam and
only Islam (presumably because he hates it or thinks it's
dangerous) or he doesn't because he "loves" it. Framed so there
is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure looks exactly like a
false dilemma to me.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following
condition "Or do you love islam so much that you would preserve
it?" So you've given two choices: either he eliminates Islam and
only Islam (presumably because he hates it or thinks it's
dangerous) or he doesn't because he "loves" it. Framed so there
is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure looks exactly like a
false dilemma to me.

It is not. This is a *HYPOTHETICAL* situation where I
have, for the sake of the argument, given you two choices.
It is a perfectly valid thought experiment. I can easily
illustrate it further below.

You can certainly think of a possible world where modal
logic would quality the situation I described
as "possible". Let's take Pelle as a concrete example:

There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Now the leader of these aliens could give Pelle two
choices: If he so desires, he can spread the alien virus
all over the world, or if he so desires, he can do
nothing. Regardless of Pelle's free choice, the aliens
would return him to Earth afterwards. Granted the
aliens *could* give more alternatives, but in this
particular hypothetical scenario they give him only
these two.

As you can see, we can well imagine a "possible world"
such as this where Pelle could live in. This is, of course,
quite far-fetched and imaginary, but *completely free of
logical contradictions*. These is nothing wrong with
posing a question like this, but because the *subject
matter has to do with islam*, it drives the Woke folks
quite crazy. That is why Pelle refused to answer. Like
a true Woke, Pelle sees all muslims as "victims" and
sees hardly anything wrong in that belief system!


Now we can see that a structurally similar thought
experiment would be acceptable to Woke folks. This
shows the double standard of the Woke sicokes. We
can keep the alien scenario mostly as I just described
it. Only this time the alien leader gives Pelle the
following two choices:

Pelle can remove all suffering from the Earth, or he
can leave things as they are. We can suppose that
aliens have invented another virus that causes all
people to become totally friendly and anti-war.

This question is on a par with my islam example, it
is the same structure only with the subject matter changed.
However, the Woke folks would accept this "what if"
scenario as valid because it is not against their Woke
ideology.

They would not complain:"Why have you given us only
two options? The aliens could remove just 50% of
suffering!".

The Woke folks are mentally ill. They want to
ban comics (Carl Barks, Don Rosa). They want to
ban music (Kake Singers). They want to ban movies
(Pekka ja Pätkä Neekereinä). There is no way I would
support these sickos, no!

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following
condition "Or do you love islam so much that you would preserve
it?" So you've given two choices: either he eliminates Islam
and
only Islam (presumably because he hates it or thinks it's
dangerous) or he doesn't because he "loves" it. Framed so
there
is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure looks exactly like a
false dilemma to me.

It is not. This is a *HYPOTHETICAL* situation where I
have, for the sake of the argument, given you two choices.
It is a perfectly valid thought experiment. I can easily
illustrate it further below.

Why do you think that hypothetical scenario can't also be an
example of a false dilemma? It absolutely can and in most cases
it is.

Here are some examples taken from google.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
The first example given of a false dilemma is "America: Love it or
leave it". If we simplify your original hypothetical scenario to
a similar framing it would be "Islam: Love it or eliminate it".
Yes, your "thought experiment" almost perfectly matches the first
example given of a false dilemma.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
You can certainly think of a possible world where modal
logic would quality the situation I described
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Now the leader of these aliens could give Pelle two
choices: If he so desires, he can spread the alien virus
all over the world, or if he so desires, he can do
nothing. Regardless of Pelle's free choice, the aliens
would return him to Earth afterwards. Granted the
aliens *could* give more alternatives, but in this
particular hypothetical scenario they give him only
these two.
As you can see, we can well imagine a "possible world"
such as this where Pelle could live in. This is, of course,
quite far-fetched and imaginary, but *completely free of
logical contradictions*. These is nothing wrong with
posing a question like this, but because the *subject
matter has to do with islam*, it drives the Woke folks
quite crazy. That is why Pelle refused to answer. Like
a true Woke, Pelle sees all muslims as "victims" and
sees hardly anything wrong in that belief system!
Now we can see that a structurally similar thought
experiment would be acceptable to Woke folks. This
shows the double standard of the Woke sicokes. We
can keep the alien scenario mostly as I just described
it. Only this time the alien leader gives Pelle the
Pelle can remove all suffering from the Earth, or he
can leave things as they are. We can suppose that
aliens have invented another virus that causes all
people to become totally friendly and anti-war.
This question is on a par with my islam example, it
is the same structure only with the subject matter changed.
However, the Woke folks would accept this "what if"
scenario as valid because it is not against their Woke
ideology.
They would not complain:"Why have you given us only
two options? The aliens could remove just 50% of
suffering!".
The Woke folks are mentally ill. They want to
ban comics (Carl Barks, Don Rosa). They want to
ban music (Kake Singers). They want to ban movies
(Pekka ja Pätkä Neekereinä). There is no way I would
support these sickos, no!

OK, so you've descended to ranting about a bunch of other
off-topic subjects. Briefly, at least in the US it's not just
"woke folks" wanting to ban/edit media, and I agree some are. In
the meantime, the Christian right are doing their best to ban
media they believe to be obscene, immoral or anti-christian or
that present racially charged topics in particular way. Many of
these right-wingers also want to ban forms of personal expression
such as sports figures kneeling before the flag.

And apparently *you* want to take it a step further and ban an
entire religion too! That's some pretty amazing Elon Musk-level
hypocrisy there.

In any case, this topic is irrelevant. "Axel" (which is
apparently a variant of the biblical name Absalom) was not an
immigrant, he was born in the UK. And all evidence we have so far
indicates he's part of a devout Christian family heavily involved
in church activities. Until we find out otherwise you're just
tilting at windmills.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by jdeluise
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following
condition "Or do you love islam so much that you would preserve
it?" So you've given two choices: either he eliminates Islam and
only Islam (presumably because he hates it or thinks it's
dangerous) or he doesn't because he "loves" it. Framed so
there
is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure looks exactly like a
false dilemma to me.

It is not. This is a *HYPOTHETICAL* situation where I
have, for the sake of the argument, given you two choices.
It is a perfectly valid thought experiment. I can easily
illustrate it further below.

Why do you think that hypothetical scenario can't also be an
example of a false dilemma? It absolutely can and in most cases
it is.

It could be, but mine is not. Just a perfectly valid thought
experiment.

Post by jdeluise
Here are some examples taken from google.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
The first example given of a false dilemma is "America: Love it or
leave it". If we simplify your original hypothetical scenario to
a similar framing it would be "Islam: Love it or eliminate it".

You have not "simplified" it, but ruined it. You see, I carefully created
a possible world scenario for you that is *logically possible*. It
tests your ethics and values in a highly unusual, but possible
situation. Do you claim that my thought experiment is not possible?

It is contradiction free and certainly your "false dilemma" cannot
be applied in this case.

To complain about two choices is just a big misunderstanding. This
*possible world* gives you just two choices, given by the alien
leader. I have not bothered to invent reasons why alien leader
would limit you to these two choices, because it does not matter.

Post by jdeluise
Yes, your "thought experiment" almost perfectly matches the first
example given of a false dilemma.

Take a look again. *None* of the examples given on that
page are hypothetical thought experiments.

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
You can certainly think of a possible world where modal
logic would quality the situation I described
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Now the leader of these aliens could give Pelle two
choices: If he so desires, he can spread the alien virus
all over the world, or if he so desires, he can do
nothing. Regardless of Pelle's free choice, the aliens
would return him to Earth afterwards. Granted the
aliens *could* give more alternatives, but in this
particular hypothetical scenario they give him only
these two.
As you can see, we can well imagine a "possible world"
such as this where Pelle could live in. This is, of course,
quite far-fetched and imaginary, but *completely free of
logical contradictions*. These is nothing wrong with
posing a question like this, but because the *subject
matter has to do with islam*, it drives the Woke folks
quite crazy. That is why Pelle refused to answer. Like
a true Woke, Pelle sees all muslims as "victims" and
sees hardly anything wrong in that belief system!
Now we can see that a structurally similar thought
experiment would be acceptable to Woke folks. This
shows the double standard of the Woke sicokes. We
can keep the alien scenario mostly as I just described
it. Only this time the alien leader gives Pelle the
Pelle can remove all suffering from the Earth, or he
can leave things as they are. We can suppose that
aliens have invented another virus that causes all
people to become totally friendly and anti-war.
This question is on a par with my islam example, it
is the same structure only with the subject matter changed.
However, the Woke folks would accept this "what if"
scenario as valid because it is not against their Woke
ideology.
They would not complain:"Why have you given us only
two options? The aliens could remove just 50% of
suffering!".
The Woke folks are mentally ill. They want to
ban comics (Carl Barks, Don Rosa). They want to
ban music (Kake Singers). They want to ban movies
(Pekka ja Pätkä Neekereinä). There is no way I would
support these sickos, no!

OK, so you've descended to ranting about a bunch of other
off-topic subjects.

There was absolute no ranting there. I only concluled with
the final paragraph telling the truth about the Woke sickos.

Please re-read what I wrote and try to use your brain.

Post by jdeluise
Briefly, at least in the US it's not just
"woke folks" wanting to ban/edit media, and I agree some are. In
the meantime, the Christian right are doing their best to ban
media they believe to be obscene, immoral or anti-christian or
that present racially charged topics in particular way. Many of
these right-wingers also want to ban forms of personal expression
such as sports figures kneeling before the flag.

It is absolutely true that not only the Woke wants censorship.

We only need to take a look at Russia and China, far right
extremist dictatorships. Those sickening countries are completely
full of censorship. Absolute no freedom of speech there!

I guess the far left and far right are equally evil.

Post by jdeluise
And apparently *you* want to take it a step further and ban an
entire religion too! That's some pretty amazing Elon Musk-level
hypocrisy there.

Hypocrisy? Why? Of course all harmful ideologies are bad to the
society. I no longer believe in freedom of religion. Some religions
are just so evil that they must be totally abolished.

Post by jdeluise
In any case, this topic is irrelevant. "Axel" (which is
apparently a variant of the biblical name Absalom) was not an
immigrant, he was born in the UK. And all evidence we have so far
indicates he's part of a devout Christian family heavily involved
in church activities. Until we find out otherwise you're just
tilting at windmills.

Forget about Axel for a while and do the thought experiments
that I have constructed.

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There was absolute no ranting there. I only concluled with
the final paragraph telling the truth about the Woke sickos

Trending today on Twitter:

https://x.com/ORostila/status/1825202075766038582

Gay youth club/community centre for children aged 13-29, in Jyväskylä,
Finland...

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There was absolute no ranting there. I only concluled with
the final paragraph telling the truth about the Woke sickos

https://x.com/ORostila/status/1825202075766038582
Gay youth club/community centre for children aged 13-29, in Jyväskylä,
Finland...

Nothing bad about it. I fully support the LGBT movement. Hey the Woke, does
islam also support it?

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There was absolute no ranting there. I only concluled with
the final paragraph telling the truth about the Woke sickos

https://x.com/ORostila/status/1825202075766038582
Gay youth club/community centre for children aged 13-29, in Jyväskylä,
Finland...

Nothing bad about it. I fully support the LGBT movement. Hey the Woke, does
islam also support it?
br,
KK

No, Islam doesn't support it but regardless many Muslim men just love
underage boys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by TT
No, Islam doesn't support it but regardless many Muslim men just love
underage boys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

You live and learn more every day...

br,
KK

[TT]

Briefly, at least in the US it's not just "woke folks" wanting to
ban/edit media, and I agree some are.  In the meantime, the Christian
right are doing their best to ban media they believe to be obscene,
immoral or anti-christian or that present racially charged topics in
particular way.  Many of these right-wingers also want to ban forms of
personal expression such as sports figures kneeling before the flag.

US Christian right is rather extreme too, doesn't really legitimize the
opposite woke extreme.

I can understand will to ban the kneeling in front of the flag... it is
sort of dishonouring institution of the flag with unrelated political
gestures.

And apparently *you* want to take it a step further and ban an entire
religion too!  That's some pretty amazing Elon Musk-level hypocrisy there.

I'm not sure if Islam brings anything good to daily lives. At least the
bad extremist side is obvious.

Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend Islam... a
religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by TT
Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend Islam... a
religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...

Exactly. You see, I worked for over 20 years in the University
of Helsinki. I did not know much about politics when I was
young and many of my colleagues were leftist. Listening to their
opinions brain-washed me into voting for the leftists, because
I figured out that since my colleagues were quite good with computers,
they would also be wise about politics.

Slowly seeing the anti-USA stance and love of islam turned
me away from supporting the left-wing politics. Nowadays I only
trust myself and do not vote for anyone, left or right.

To be honest, almost all politicians are scum of the earth.

br,
KK

[Sawfish]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend Islam... a
religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...

Exactly.

There's on obvious answer to this paradox that is apparently to someone
who lives in the US. Pelle doesn't fit this, but I've given up
attempting to explain Pelle's views. He's an outlier.

You want to know why woke progressives in the US might favor Islam over
Judaism? It's simple: here in the US, among the woke, there is a
REFLEXIVE affinity for perceived traditional underdogs. Muslims are
misunderstood underdogs so far as the US woke are concerned, and hence
worthy of immediate and unquestioned support.

It's sorta like #metoo, but for ethnic groups. Anything they say is by
default true, no question. Don't expect logic--and hence
consistency--expect whim and emotion, which permits inconsistencies if
they *feel* right.

So the rule of thumb on any such question involving two parties is:
which is the historical underdog? Then favor the underdog as an article
of faith.

I suspect that the UK has gone this way, too. New Zealand also. Not sure
about Australia.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
You see, I worked for over 20 years in the University
of Helsinki. I did not know much about politics when I was
young and many of my colleagues were leftist. Listening to their
opinions brain-washed me into voting for the leftists, because
I figured out that since my colleagues were quite good with computers,
they would also be wise about politics.
Slowly seeing the anti-USA stance and love of islam turned
me away from supporting the left-wing politics. Nowadays I only
trust myself and do not vote for anyone, left or right.
To be honest, almost all politicians are scum of the earth.
br,
KK

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!"

--Sawfish

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Sawfish

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend Islam... a
religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...

Exactly.

There's on obvious answer to this paradox that is apparently to someone
who lives in the US. Pelle doesn't fit this, but I've given up
attempting to explain Pelle's views. He's an outlier.
You want to know why woke progressives in the US might favor Islam over
Judaism? It's simple: here in the US, among the woke, there is a
REFLEXIVE affinity for perceived traditional underdogs. Muslims are
misunderstood underdogs so far as the US woke are concerned, and hence
worthy of immediate and unquestioned support.
It's sorta like #metoo, but for ethnic groups. Anything they say is by
default true, no question. Don't expect logic--and hence
consistency--expect whim and emotion, which permits inconsistencies if
they *feel* right.
which is the historical underdog? Then favor the underdog as an article
of faith.
I suspect that the UK has gone this way, too. New Zealand also. Not sure
about Australia.

That is exactly the sad truth about the Woke. It is disgusting.

I find it utterly ridiculous that Woke also consists of something
called *intersectional feminism*. Those sickos claim that they
work for the rights of women and pretend to be super liberal and
yet they support islam which is a completely patriarchal system
based on the strong inequality between the sexes. These intersectional
losers do not even understand the elementary concept of logical
contradiction.

Their words and actions are not logically compatible, but they
just keep on going, not minding about "little things" like these.

Hahahahahahaa!

br,
KK

[Sawfish]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Sawfish

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend Islam... a
religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...

Exactly.

There's on obvious answer to this paradox that is apparently to someone
who lives in the US. Pelle doesn't fit this, but I've given up
attempting to explain Pelle's views. He's an outlier.
You want to know why woke progressives in the US might favor Islam over
Judaism? It's simple: here in the US, among the woke, there is a
REFLEXIVE affinity for perceived traditional underdogs. Muslims are
misunderstood underdogs so far as the US woke are concerned, and hence
worthy of immediate and unquestioned support.
It's sorta like #metoo, but for ethnic groups. Anything they say is by
default true, no question. Don't expect logic--and hence
consistency--expect whim and emotion, which permits inconsistencies if
they *feel* right.
which is the historical underdog? Then favor the underdog as an article
of faith.
I suspect that the UK has gone this way, too. New Zealand also. Not sure
about Australia.

That is exactly the sad truth about the Woke. It is disgusting.
I find it utterly ridiculous that Woke also consists of something
called *intersectional feminism*. Those sickos claim that they
work for the rights of women and pretend to be super liberal and
yet they support islam which is a completely patriarchal system
based on the strong inequality between the sexes. These intersectional
losers do not even understand the elementary concept of logical
contradiction.

Aha, my friend. I see your confusion.

"Logic" is a western patriarchal concept designed to disempower women
and minorities. To refuse to use logic is to oppose the oppressors.

Now do you get it?

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Their words and actions are not logically compatible, but they
just keep on going, not minding about "little things" like these.
Hahahahahahaa!
br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Sawfish
"Logic" is a western patriarchal concept designed to disempower women
and minorities. To refuse to use logic is to oppose the oppressors.
Now do you get it?

Now we get it.

That's why I'm blocked by half of the green & far-left and even a couple
university researchers on Finnish Twitter. I mansplain too much... it's
not very nice to use logic in one's arguments to counter the woke ideology.

[Sawfish]

Post by TT

Post by Sawfish
"Logic" is a western patriarchal concept designed to disempower women
and minorities. To refuse to use logic is to oppose the oppressors.
Now do you get it?

Now we get it.
That's why I'm blocked by half of the green & far-left and even a
couple university researchers on Finnish Twitter. I mansplain too
much... it's not very nice to use logic in one's arguments to counter
the woke ideology.

To reference the old saying...

"Don't complicate the issue under discussion by introducing facts..."

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend
Islam... a
religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...

Exactly. You see, I worked for over 20 years in the University
of Helsinki.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

[*skriptis]

"Axel" (which is apparently a variant of the biblical name Absalom) was not an immigrant, he was born in the UK.

You're either a boring troll or an absolute moron.

Which one are you?


It's a dilemma. Give us an answer.

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Or they could go to a butterfly and say "take me to your leader"... and
then the butterfly would land on JD's shoulder. It's not far-fetched at
all. :)

Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not explain the
movement & speed of the object with any other explanation, or explain
lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even today.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
the situation. About jdeluise's page:

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html

It says:

---begin quote----

False Dilemma

When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.

---end quote----

In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.

This seems difficult to grasp if you are Woke.

Post by TT
Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not explain the
movement & speed of the object with any other explanation, or explain
lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even today.

Yes, the UFOs and aliens are for real.

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not explain the
movement & speed of the object with any other explanation, or explain
lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even today.

Yes, the UFOs and aliens are for real.
br,
KK

Well, that was easier than I expected. :)

Now I don't get to tell about Obama's comments, USS Nimitz case etc.

Interesting about pretty much all of these (credible) cases is that they
never make sound despite obvious breaking of multiple sound barriers -
same as with my own incident.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by TT
Well, that was easier than I expected. :)

A few years ago, I bought many UFO-related books and
studied this phenomenon quite a lot. The UFO scene
is unfortunately at least 95% of hoaxes and lunatics,
but the remaining 5% is solid evidence.

Post by TT
Now I don't get to tell about Obama's comments, USS Nimitz case etc.
Interesting about pretty much all of these (credible) cases is that they
never make sound despite obvious breaking of multiple sound barriers -
same as with my own incident.

There are probably many different races of aliens. The ones
that visit us are way ahead of our science and technology.

Their knowlegde of the fundamental physics and our universe
can be millions of years ahead of ours. It makes sense to think
within the scope of Einstein's equations (e.g. wormholes could
provide shortcuts to travel in the Universe), but it must
also be admitted that Einstein's view of physics might not
be the ultimate truth.

The modern physics on Earth is very young. For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect. Einstein overturned his
theories. It may well be that aliens know much more about
our universe and physics. It allows them to reach Earth
using some yet-unknown-to-humans technology.

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect.

You can put a man on the moon with Newton. I believe they all made it back.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Einstein overturned his
theories.

"Overturned" is the wrong choice of words. Newton is a very good
approximation of Einstein where it applies. "Extended" is the correct word.

What is it you do get right?

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect.

You can put a man on the moon with Newton. I believe they all made it back.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Einstein overturned his
theories.

"Overturned" is the wrong choice of words. Newton is a very good
approximation of Einstein where it applies. "Extended" is the correct word.
What is it you do get right?

You are totally *wrong* again. Newton's physics is simply
mathematically *wrong*. It does have limited use as an
approximation, but the mathematical equations are wrong.

Einstein's theory indeed overturned Newton's.

Your understanding of proper logical reasoning
is very poor indeed. You do not even understand
basic mathematics.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect.

You can put a man on the moon with Newton. I believe they all
made it back.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Einstein overturned his
theories.

"Overturned" is the wrong choice of words. Newton is a very
good
approximation of Einstein where it applies. "Extended" is the
correct word.
What is it you do get right?

You are totally *wrong* again. Newton's physics is simply
mathematically *wrong*. It does have limited use as an
approximation, but the mathematical equations are wrong.
Einstein's theory indeed overturned Newton's.
Your understanding of proper logical reasoning
is very poor indeed. You do not even understand
basic mathematics.

I would use the word "superseded" rather than "overturned", yet
that's not entirely accurate either. In fact they were both
"wrong", technically, about some things. Still, Newtonian physics
is taught and is regularly used even in professional settings to
this day, quite a lot more than "limited use". Einstein greatly
admired Newton. He wrote this forward to Newton's "Opticks"
posthumously:

"Fortunate Newton, happy childhood of science! He who has time and
tranquility can by reading this book live again the wonderful
events which the great Newton experienced in his young
days. Nature to him was an open book, whose letters he could read
without effort. The conceptions which he used to reduce the
material of existence to order seemed to flow spontaneously from
experience itself, from the beautiful experiments which he ranged
in order like playthings and describes with an affectionate wealth
of detail. On one person he combined the experimenter, the
theorist, the mechanic and, not least, the artist in exposition."

Newton himself said "If I have seen further it is by standing on
the shoulders of Giants". I think Einstein would agree.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect.

You can put a man on the moon with Newton. I believe they all made it back.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Einstein overturned his
theories.

"Overturned" is the wrong choice of words. Newton is a very
good
approximation of Einstein where it applies. "Extended" is the correct word.
What is it you do get right?

You are totally *wrong* again. Newton's physics is simply
mathematically *wrong*. It does have limited use as an
approximation, but the mathematical equations are wrong.
Einstein's theory indeed overturned Newton's.
Your understanding of proper logical reasoning
is very poor indeed. You do not even understand
basic mathematics.

I would use the word "superseded" rather than "overturned", yet
that's not entirely accurate either. In fact they were both
"wrong", technically, about some things. Still, Newtonian physics
is taught and is regularly used even in professional settings to
this day, quite a lot more than "limited use". Einstein greatly
admired Newton. He wrote this forward to Newton's "Opticks"
"Fortunate Newton, happy childhood of science! He who has time and
tranquility can by reading this book live again the wonderful
events which the great Newton experienced in his young
days. Nature to him was an open book, whose letters he could read
without effort. The conceptions which he used to reduce the
material of existence to order seemed to flow spontaneously from
experience itself, from the beautiful experiments which he ranged
in order like playthings and describes with an affectionate wealth
of detail. On one person he combined the experimenter, the
theorist, the mechanic and, not least, the artist in exposition."
Newton himself said "If I have seen further it is by standing on
the shoulders of Giants". I think Einstein would agree.

The noblest purpose of all science, including physics, is to
discover theories that are *true* in accordance with Alfred
Tarski's theory of truth. In other words, the theories must
describe reality accurately.

Newton's theories are simply false even though they can be
useful in limited circustances. Yes, Newton's physics is
still taught in high schools in Finland. The formulas are
extremely easy to understand and do not require advanced
mathematics like Einstein's theories do.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
The noblest purpose of all science, including physics, is to
discover theories that are *true* in accordance with Alfred
Tarski's theory of truth. In other words, the theories must
describe reality accurately.
Newton's theories are simply false even though they can be
useful in limited circustances.

Stop right there... "limited circumstances"? Newtonian mechanics
holds up very well for large, slow-moving objects not under strong
gravitational force... basically the kind of thing we humans deal
with everyday. Let me get this straight, you think we use
relativistic mechanics to calculate the trajectory of artillery
shells, bullets or tennis balls from ball machines? Or when
calculating forces acting on skyscrapers and bridges? How about
aerodynamics or vehicle engineering? Do police investigators use
it when calculating the likely velocity of a vehicle after a
crash? No, of course not. For GPS, sure! Limited
circumstances?!! What are you talking about?

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Yes, Newton's physics is
still taught in high schools in Finland. The formulas are
extremely easy to understand and do not require advanced
mathematics like Einstein's theories do.

Newton's theories were incomplete for sure. But there are many
possible worlds (see what I did there? :>) in which Einstein's
theories may also be "false" (or incomplete). They have held up
well so far, so long as dark matter is introduced.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
The noblest purpose of all science, including physics, is to
discover theories that are *true* in accordance with Alfred
Tarski's theory of truth. In other words, the theories must
describe reality accurately.
Newton's theories are simply false even though they can be
useful in limited circustances.

Stop right there... "limited circumstances"? Newtonian mechanics
holds up very well for large, slow-moving objects not under strong
gravitational force... basically the kind of thing we humans deal
with everyday. Let me get this straight, you think we use
relativistic mechanics to calculate the trajectory of artillery
shells, bullets or tennis balls from ball machines? Or when
calculating forces acting on skyscrapers and bridges? How about
aerodynamics or vehicle engineering? Do police investigators use
it when calculating the likely velocity of a vehicle after a
crash? No, of course not. For GPS, sure! Limited
circumstances?!! What are you talking about?

Limited circumstances meaning that this approximation
is only useful for a proper subset of all cases. Einstein's
theory is presumed correct but may well have defects for
all I know.

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Yes, Newton's physics is
still taught in high schools in Finland. The formulas are
extremely easy to understand and do not require advanced
mathematics like Einstein's theories do.

Newton's theories were incomplete for sure. But there are many
possible worlds (see what I did there? :>) in which Einstein's
theories may also be "false" (or incomplete). They have held up
well so far, so long as dark matter is introduced.

Like I said earlier, I learned from the mistakes the humanity
made with respect to Newton. For centuries Newton was believed
to be the truth until empirical testing showed that Einstein's
theory correctly predicted the bending of light, or something
to that effect. I do not remember. It may well be that Einstein's
theory has some defects, too.

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
Well, that was easier than I expected. :)

A few years ago, I bought many UFO-related books and
studied this phenomenon quite a lot. The UFO scene
is unfortunately at least 95% of hoaxes and lunatics,
but the remaining 5% is solid evidence.

Yes, there are a lot of crazies, hoaxers and liars at that scene, or
just untrustworthy people who undermine the more legit cases. All sorts
of nuts abductees etc. I personally am not convinced at all about any
actual alien lifeform sightings, and think that they're probably alien
drones.
Although there was one rather compelling case in an African school with
many children & alien creature. Then again the alien warning children
about our future sounds a bit naive & incredible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_School_UFO_incident

Top 5 cases which I consider the most convincing:

1. My own encounter
Earthly objects just can't move like this. Without noticeable
acceleration instant speed of approx Mach 5 from completely stationary &
no sound. There were a handful of us which saw it, and it literally flew
over our heads, after being stationary for few seconds perhaps a few
hundred meters away on the sky.

2. USS Nimitz, commander Fravor case...
There are some inconsistencies with Fravor vs the other pilot story.
However there were also other planes & pilots. Radar personnel. What
perhaps convinced me the most was the interview of the radar operator,
which was to be found on YT. This relates to my incident so that again
they made no sound, moved in a way that's not possible... in this case
not possible even by the physics laws we know of, according to pilots &
radar operator.
Also, the radar operator seemed very troubled by the incident, which I
believe is an easy tell whether the case is legit - since at least we
were scared shitless after our own incident. It really disrupts one's
thoughts on many things we take for granted.


3. "Foo fighters". Here's a nice write up about the phenomenon, although
I think it fails to mention that German and Japanese pilots had reported
similar sightings...
https://www.history.com/news/wwii-ufos-allied-airmen-orange-lights-foo-fighters

4. Tehran 1976 UFO incident.
... Pilots, airplane malfunctions, people at the airport etc saw it to
my recollection. US Army made a thorough case study of it, very
interesting official US Army documents unearthed by Freedom of
information act. Don't trust Wikipedia on this case, it's full of crap.

5. Phoenix lights. LOTS of people saw them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

-

These things are probably hard to believe for anyone who hasn't seen one
themselves, which is most of people.

Obama: "What is true, and I'm actually being serious here, is that there
is footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know
exactly what they are"

"We can't explain how they move, their trajectory. They did not have an
easily explainable pattern."

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
Now I don't get to tell about Obama's comments, USS Nimitz case etc.
Interesting about pretty much all of these (credible) cases is that they
never make sound despite obvious breaking of multiple sound barriers -
same as with my own incident.

There are probably many different races of aliens. The ones
that visit us are way ahead of our science and technology.

Obviously. Since they were able to come this far. The way and speed they
move, without any apparent propellant system.

But as I said, I'm doubtful there are actual living aliens inside the
vessels - unless you count advanced A.I. as living. My theory is that
they have been here thousands of years - maybe much longer... and spend
much of the time under/over water in oceans & in general avoid us.

Time doesn't really matter to A.I. / a computer, so it could travel here
for how long it takes. But who knows... afaik we still haven't been able
to catch even a single one...

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by TT
But as I said, I'm doubtful there are actual living aliens inside the
vessels - unless you count advanced A.I. as living. My theory is that
they have been here thousands of years - maybe much longer... and spend
much of the time under/over water in oceans & in general avoid us.

I tend to believe in flesh-and-blood aliens, or at any rate in biological
alien entities. Based on *our* physics, we cannot comprehend how living
creatures could survive the high speed maneuvers that we see, but again,
this may be just a limitation of our current scientific knowledge. The
aliens may have found a way to shield themselves from the crushing
gravitational forces. They may also have found out ways to stop aging
so that they can live for a long time or even eternally.

Many native tribes in the USA, namely different kind of Indians, have
oral histories that extend thousands of years back. Of course the
details have become blurred, but many natives' oral history says
that the tribes were visited by beings who came from the Sky. Apparently
the beings were biological aliens, but okay, they may have been some
kind of robots or cyborgs as well. These beings were teachers to the
Indians. Some American Indian tribes even believe that their ancestors
came from the Stars a long time ago.

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT
But as I said, I'm doubtful there are actual living aliens inside the
vessels - unless you count advanced A.I. as living. My theory is that
they have been here thousands of years - maybe much longer... and spend
much of the time under/over water in oceans & in general avoid us.

I tend to believe in flesh-and-blood aliens, or at any rate in biological
alien entities. Based on *our* physics, we cannot comprehend how living
creatures could survive the high speed maneuvers that we see, but again,
this may be just a limitation of our current scientific knowledge. The
aliens may have found a way to shield themselves from the crushing
gravitational forces. They may also have found out ways to stop aging
so that they can live for a long time or even eternally.
Many native tribes in the USA, namely different kind of Indians, have
oral histories that extend thousands of years back. Of course the
details have become blurred, but many natives' oral history says
that the tribes were visited by beings who came from the Sky. Apparently
the beings were biological aliens, but okay, they may have been some
kind of robots or cyborgs as well. These beings were teachers to the
Indians. Some American Indian tribes even believe that their ancestors
came from the Stars a long time ago.
br,
KK

Fair enough. I guess it's possible. I just haven't found biological
alien encounter stories very believable. And on my own incident it felt
like it flew away after we spotted it. Then again not so much with "foo
fighters"

I do think that AI drone hypothesis gives the problem of distances some
kind of explanation... and also to high speed manoeuvres vs G-forces
problem you mentioned above. Occam's razor.

Yet, if they can break the physics laws as we know it, maybe there's no
limits as we imagine them.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.

Isn't that what JD said.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.

Of course there are. You see religion as the sole explainer of whatnot
ills you attribute to it. It of course isn't.

Finland should start sending some talented palefaces to RST. I assume
there are those.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.

Isn't that what JD said.

Are you crazy? The quote above is *the definition* of false dilemmas.
jdeluise quite clearly stated that my thought experiment was a
false dilemma. And naturally he was *so wrong*.

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.

Of course there are. You see religion as the sole explainer of whatnot
ills you attribute to it. It of course isn't.

Your understanding of philosophy and proper reasoning is
at the level of a pretty small child. Lacking development. I have
to laugh! :-)

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.

Isn't that what JD said.

Are you crazy? The quote above is *the definition* of false dilemmas.

Sober up. I know that.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
jdeluise quite clearly stated that my thought experiment was a
false dilemma. And naturally he was *so wrong*.

He said you truncated the issue into a binary framework. That is
correct. That satisfies the definition above.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.

Of course there are. You see religion as the sole explainer of whatnot
ills you attribute to it. It of course isn't.

Your understanding of philosophy

I see you're still smoking with the frat boys. After all these years.

The only thing needed is to check your "experiment" against the
definition above. JD provided one angle, I another. Your only answer is
the silly, ex cathedra "you don't understand".

We all understand. You're a crackpot from Finland.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.

Isn't that what JD said.

Are you crazy? The quote above is *the definition* of false dilemmas.

Sober up. I know that.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
jdeluise quite clearly stated that my thought experiment was a
false dilemma. And naturally he was *so wrong*.

He said you truncated the issue into a binary framework. That is
correct. That satisfies the definition above.

Hahah! He explicitly said "false dilemma" and even found the
web page that I mentioned. He thought he would find support
for his thesis there.

By all means, Pelle, please explain in a rigorous way what is this
"binary framework" that you are referring to? How is it defined
and how does it differ from "false dilemmas"?

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.

Of course there are. You see religion as the sole explainer of whatnot
ills you attribute to it. It of course isn't.

Your understanding of philosophy

I see you're still smoking with the frat boys. After all these years.

Your lack of undestanding is quite ridiculous.

Post by Pelle Svanslös
The only thing needed is to check your "experiment" against the
definition above. JD provided one angle, I another. Your only answer is
the silly, ex cathedra "you don't understand".
We all understand. You're a crackpot from Finland.

Again, you do not have the required mental capabilies to
address the question at hand. Instead you go for the ad
hominem attacks again. That is what the Woke excels at.

Why not tell us what you have accomplished in life, Pelle? Do
you have merits worth mentioning in work, science or arts?

What do you do for living? How old are you?

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Pelle Svanslös
We all understand. You're a crackpot from Finland.

You seem very racist towards Aryan master race... typical woke double
standards...

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
---end quote----
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this
particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false
dilemma.

Your aggressive insistence that you're right about this thing is
pretty comical. I mean here you are writing voluminous posts
about it, mixing in a bunch of ad hominem attacks about me in
replies to others. And you've since posted something like a half
a dozen alternate scenarios to try to cover up or convince me that
your original statement wasn't what it obviously was: a logical
fallacy. Now you're quoting from a definition of "false dilemma",
which PERFECTLY describes what you did. Yet you seem to think it
shows the opposite?! You're not fooling anyone, I don't think
even TT or *skript are buying your argument here. Though they may
agree with your underlying sentiment so they won't want to
publicly admit it.

What a waste of time and energy! If you would have just said
originally "yeah I know, it was just a bit of hyperbole to make a
point" and left it at that I probably wouldn't have said a word in
reply. But oh no, you had to argue that up is down and white is
black... all so you don't have to admit you made a poorly framed
argument. Big whoop, we all do it from time to time.

You remind me so much of Court_1. Not only in your general
writing style but also in your reluctance to admit when you made a
mistake. I remember over a decade ago I pointed out a small
grammatical error she made in a post. I don't remember what it
was now, but it was incredibly obvious and any English speaker
would immediately recognize it, it was something akin to using
"their" instead of "there" in a particular context. Boy that
really angered her. She fought me tooth and nail about it for
what felt like weeks. Very similar responses, a huge volume of
lengthy posts filled with angry invectives and side commentary
that just served as smokescreen to obscure the original
discussion. Like you, she ignored all evidence and examples that
she was wrong and instead insisted that the examples exonerated
her. Finally she just insisted that she was right and nothing
short of showing her an English degree would convince her
otherwise. It was extremely cringey and embarrassing, but that's
how she rolled. I don't know why people can't just admit when
they're wrong, it's not a big deal. rst is so partisan most
posters aren't willing to expose themselves in that way I suppose.

Anyway, if you want your considerable pride to do irreparable
damage your credibility, keep on trying to prove whatever you're
trying to prove. The important thing to me is that *I* know
you're wrong and I know I've provided enough credible evidence to
show it. You haven't done a damn thing.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
This seems difficult to grasp if you are Woke.

Post by TT
Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps
intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not
explain the
movement & speed of the object with any other explanation, or
explain
lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even
today.

Yes, the UFOs and aliens are for real.
br,
KK

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.

Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
---end quote----
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this
particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false
dilemma.

Your aggressive insistence that you're right about this thing is
pretty comical. I mean here you are writing voluminous posts
about it, mixing in a bunch of ad hominem attacks about me in
replies to others. And you've since posted something like a half
a dozen alternate scenarios to try to cover up or convince me that
your original statement wasn't what it obviously was: a logical
fallacy. Now you're quoting from a definition of "false dilemma",
which PERFECTLY describes what you did.

That is utter and complete rubbish.

Post by jdeluise
Yet you seem to think it
shows the opposite?! You're not fooling anyone, I don't think
even TT or *skript are buying your argument here. Though they may
agree with your underlying sentiment so they won't want to
publicly admit it.

Jesus Christ you must be pretty stupid. My thought experiment
is perfectly valid. It describes *one particular possible world
in modal logical terms*, and in this possible world, Pelle is given
*exactly two choices*. This is a hypothetical "what if you
were in a situation like this" case. Is it really that hard to
understand?

The only way you could refute my thought experiment
would be to show that I have described a possible world that
cannot exist, i.e. it would contain a contradiction. But my
possible world is perfectly logically consistent.

Do you even understand what "a possible world" means in modal
logic?

Post by jdeluise
What a waste of time and energy! If you would have just said
originally "yeah I know, it was just a bit of hyperbole to make a
point" and left it at that I probably wouldn't have said a word in
reply. But oh no, you had to argue that up is down and white is
black... all so you don't have to admit you made a poorly framed
argument. Big whoop, we all do it from time to time.

You are seriously delusional.

Post by jdeluise
You remind me so much of Court_1. Not only in your general
writing style but also in your reluctance to admit when you made a
mistake.

I always admit my mistakes.

Post by jdeluise
Anyway, if you want your considerable pride to do irreparable
damage your credibility, keep on trying to prove whatever you're
trying to prove. The important thing to me is that *I* know
you're wrong and I know I've provided enough credible evidence to
show it. You haven't done a damn thing.

No, you just do not understand what is a hypothetical
thought experiment involving a possible world. You are
quite seriously confused. Maybe you have smarter friends who
understand logical reasoning and you can consult them about
this matter?

Or maybe it helps if you cool down and try rational thinking
for a while?

br,
KK

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Or maybe it helps if you cool down and try rational thinking
for a while?

I guess I have to help you a little bit, since you seem to
be totally honest in the middle of your confusion... Cool
down first of all and stop insisting that you must be right.

The web page you found and linked is correct. How?

My thought experiment would indeed be a *logical fallacy* in *this
particular world* that we currently live in. In this world
I cannot make Pelle to choose between those two options,
since *in this world* we *do have* other options. It would
indeed be a false dilemma *in this world*. Get it?

But for the sake of argument, to test Pelle's value
and ethics, I have *supposed* there could be a *logically
consistent alternative world* that gives Pelle only two
options. Like I said in my earlier post, the only way you
could refute the validity of my thought experiment would
be to show that my alternative world *just cannot exist*.

You would prove that by deriving a logical contradiction
in the definition of the alternative world. This cannot
be done here, because there is no logical contradiction.

Remember what I also said? The leader alien gives Pelle these
two options and no more. This is all part of the definition
of this alternative world. There is no contradiction or
fallacy in this case.

Relax and use your imagination and use it hard.
*COULD* the alien case happen in theory? Could there
be such an alien that he would only give two options
and no more? YES, of course! It is possible. It
is fine to have only two choices in that alternative
world.

Sure there can be many more alternative possible worlds where
the leader alien would give Pelle three, four, five, six,
seven options. But in this case Pelle has just two and
this world is logically consistent and thus it is a
possible world in the modal logical sense.

Again, if you do not get it by now, please consult
your smarter friends about this matter.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
I guess I have to help you a little bit, since you seem to
be totally honest in the middle of your confusion... Cool
down first of all and stop insisting that you must be right.
The web page you found and linked is correct. How?
My thought experiment would indeed be a *logical fallacy* in
*this
particular world* that we currently live in. In this world
I cannot make Pelle to choose between those two options,
since *in this world* we *do have* other options. It would
indeed be a false dilemma *in this world*. Get it?
But for the sake of argument, to test Pelle's value
and ethics, I have *supposed* there could be a *logically
consistent alternative world* that gives Pelle only two
options. Like I said in my earlier post, the only way you
could refute the validity of my thought experiment would
be to show that my alternative world *just cannot exist*.
You would prove that by deriving a logical contradiction
in the definition of the alternative world. This cannot
be done here, because there is no logical contradiction.
Remember what I also said? The leader alien gives Pelle these
two options and no more. This is all part of the definition
of this alternative world. There is no contradiction or
fallacy in this case.
Relax and use your imagination and use it hard.
*COULD* the alien case happen in theory? Could there
be such an alien that he would only give two options
and no more? YES, of course! It is possible. It
is fine to have only two choices in that alternative
world.
Sure there can be many more alternative possible worlds where
the leader alien would give Pelle three, four, five, six,
seven options. But in this case Pelle has just two and
this world is logically consistent and thus it is a
possible world in the modal logical sense.
Again, if you do not get it by now, please consult
your smarter friends about this matter.
br,
KK

But it seems you're the one who is ill at ease here. After all,
you're busy writing lengthy replies to yourself(!), begging me to
calm down while frantically constructing more and more scaffolding
around your little two sentence turd. Hahaha!!

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
I guess I have to help you a little bit, since you seem to
be totally honest in the middle of your confusion... Cool
down first of all and stop insisting that you must be right.
The web page you found and linked is correct. How?
My thought experiment would indeed be a *logical fallacy* in
*this
particular world* that we currently live in. In this world
I cannot make Pelle to choose between those two options,
since *in this world* we *do have* other options. It would
indeed be a false dilemma *in this world*. Get it?
But for the sake of argument, to test Pelle's value
and ethics, I have *supposed* there could be a *logically
consistent alternative world* that gives Pelle only two
options. Like I said in my earlier post, the only way you
could refute the validity of my thought experiment would
be to show that my alternative world *just cannot exist*.
You would prove that by deriving a logical contradiction
in the definition of the alternative world. This cannot
be done here, because there is no logical contradiction.
Remember what I also said? The leader alien gives Pelle these
two options and no more. This is all part of the definition
of this alternative world. There is no contradiction or
fallacy in this case.
Relax and use your imagination and use it hard.
*COULD* the alien case happen in theory? Could there
be such an alien that he would only give two options
and no more? YES, of course! It is possible. It
is fine to have only two choices in that alternative
world.
Sure there can be many more alternative possible worlds where
the leader alien would give Pelle three, four, five, six,
seven options. But in this case Pelle has just two and
this world is logically consistent and thus it is a
possible world in the modal logical sense.
Again, if you do not get it by now, please consult
your smarter friends about this matter.
br,
KK

But it seems you're the one who is ill at ease here. After all,
you're busy writing lengthy replies to yourself(!), begging me to
calm down while frantically constructing more and more scaffolding
around your little two sentence turd. Hahaha!!

I expected a saner response from you. I took some time
to write a detailed response and tried to help you to get
rid of your confusion. Now let's try a simple question:

Do you think the possible world that I imagined could not
exist? If you answer "yes", then please provide your exact
reasoning. If you answer "no", then you admit that my
thought experiment is valid.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
That is utter and complete rubbish.
Jesus Christ you must be pretty stupid. My thought experiment
is perfectly valid. It describes *one particular possible world
in modal logical terms*, and in this possible world, Pelle is
given
*exactly two choices*. This is a hypothetical "what if you
were in a situation like this" case. Is it really that hard to
understand?
The only way you could refute my thought experiment
would be to show that I have described a possible world that
cannot exist, i.e. it would contain a contradiction. But my
possible world is perfectly logically consistent.
Do you even understand what "a possible world" means in modal
logic?
You are seriously delusional.
I always admit my mistakes.

So did Court_1. Here's the kicker, she never made any!

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
No, you just do not understand what is a hypothetical
thought experiment involving a possible world. You are
quite seriously confused. Maybe you have smarter friends who
understand logical reasoning and you can consult them about
this matter?
Or maybe it helps if you cool down and try rational thinking
for a while?

You're not fooling anyone.

Kaveli's possible worlds modal logic scenario: 'If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists or agnostics in a
blink of an eye, would you do so? Or do you love islam so much
that you would preserve it?'

This tiny little turd doesn't "describe *one particular possible
world in modal logical terms*" as you stated above and it really
has nothing to do with logic at all. But it perfectly resembles a
*logical fallacy* written in a hurry and angrily attempting to
paint Pelle as some kind of partisan ally to muslims. THAT'S all
it really was. We all know it.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
That is utter and complete rubbish.
Jesus Christ you must be pretty stupid. My thought experiment
is perfectly valid. It describes *one particular possible world
in modal logical terms*, and in this possible world, Pelle is
given
*exactly two choices*. This is a hypothetical "what if you
were in a situation like this" case. Is it really that hard to
understand?
The only way you could refute my thought experiment
would be to show that I have described a possible world that
cannot exist, i.e. it would contain a contradiction. But my
possible world is perfectly logically consistent.
Do you even understand what "a possible world" means in modal
logic?
You are seriously delusional.
I always admit my mistakes.

So did Court_1. Here's the kicker, she never made any!

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
No, you just do not understand what is a hypothetical
thought experiment involving a possible world. You are
quite seriously confused. Maybe you have smarter friends who
understand logical reasoning and you can consult them about
this matter?
Or maybe it helps if you cool down and try rational thinking
for a while?

You're not fooling anyone.
Kaveli's possible worlds modal logic scenario: 'If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists or agnostics in a
blink of an eye, would you do so? Or do you love islam so much
that you would preserve it?'
This tiny little turd doesn't "describe *one particular possible
world in modal logical terms*" as you stated above and it really
has nothing to do with logic at all. But it perfectly resembles a
*logical fallacy* written in a hurry and angrily attempting to
paint Pelle as some kind of partisan ally to muslims. THAT'S all
it really was. We all know it.

I provided one possible world to illustrate this situation.
Let's think about it again. This is what I wrote:

-----begin possible world definition---------

You can certainly think of a possible world where modal
logic would quality the situation I described
as "possible". Let's take Pelle as a concrete example:

There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Now the leader of these aliens could give Pelle two
choices: If he so desires, he can spread the alien virus
all over the world, or if he so desires, he can do
nothing. Regardless of Pelle's free choice, the aliens
would return him to Earth afterwards. Granted the
aliens *could* give more alternatives, but in this
particular hypothetical scenario they give him only
these two.

-----end possible world definition---------

Do you have some kind problem with that? If so,
please elaborate.

br,
KK

[jdeluise]

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.
Or they could go to a butterfly and say "take me to your
leader"... and then the butterfly would land on JD's
shoulder. It's
not far-fetched at all. :)
Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps
intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not
explain
the movement & speed of the object with any other explanation,
or
explain lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed
from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even
today.

When he was alive my father told me that he had seen a UFO while
on vacation. He had taken a walk alone late at night and was
spending some time listening to loons on a lake. He claimed he
saw it emerging from a cloud that was shimmering in light above
the lake, hovering there for quite some time and then flying away
at an incredible rate of speed. I do believe he saw what he saw,
I just am not sure I agree with the conclusion it was "aliens". I
think in all likelihood aliens exist, but I don't immediately make
the leap that phenomena like this is evidence of their existence.
I just can't wrap my mind around why a large alien ship capable of
such amazing, seemingly physics-defying feats would be hanging out
in a cloud somewhere nearby human civilization. Why would they
even need to enter the atmosphere at all? Surely they could study
us by much more inconspicuous means if they're capable of coming
here at all. Something doesn't add up.

[Sawfish]

Post by TT

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.

Nice idea.
Or they could go to a butterfly and say "take me to your
leader"... and then the butterfly would land on JD's shoulder. It's
not far-fetched at all. :)
Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not explain
the movement & speed of the object with any other explanation, or
explain lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even today.

When he was alive my father told me that he had seen a UFO while on
vacation.  He had taken a walk alone late at night and was spending
some time listening to loons on a lake.  He claimed he saw it emerging
from a cloud that was shimmering in light above the lake, hovering
there for quite some time and then flying away at an incredible rate
of speed.  I do believe he saw what he saw, I just am not sure I agree
with the conclusion it was "aliens".  I think in all likelihood aliens
exist, but I don't immediately make the leap that phenomena like this
is evidence of their existence. I just can't wrap my mind around why a
large alien ship capable of such amazing, seemingly physics-defying
feats would be hanging out in a cloud somewhere nearby human
civilization.  Why would they even need to enter the atmosphere at
all?  Surely they could study us by much more inconspicuous means if
they're capable of coming here at all.  Something doesn't add up.

Do you suppose that Axel Muganwa Rudakubana is an alien?


...closing the circle...  ;^)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!"

--Sawfish

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

I already said it was a false dilemma.  He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too.  It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.

What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.

But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?"  So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it.  Framed so there is no middle ground allowed.  Gosh, it sure
looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.

The "if" is binary and it is loaded.

Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"

Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative are
caused by a religion and the religion only is preposterously dumb short
circuiting.

This kind of crap is what you typically hear in a dive for sophomores.
What's a fat fifty on mushrooms doing there.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

I already said it was a false dilemma.  He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too.  It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.

What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.

But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?"  So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it.  Framed so there is no middle ground allowed.  Gosh, it sure
looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.

The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative are
caused by a religion and the religion only is preposterously dumb short
circuiting.
This kind of crap is what you typically hear in a dive for sophomores.
What's a fat fifty on mushrooms doing there.

As can be seen, all Pelle is capable of doing is personal attack.

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

I already said it was a false dilemma.  He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too.  It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.

What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.

But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?"  So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it.  Framed so there is no middle ground allowed.  Gosh, it sure
looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.

The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative are
caused by a religion and the religion only is preposterously dumb short
circuiting.
This kind of crap is what you typically hear in a dive for sophomores.
What's a fat fifty on mushrooms doing there.

As can be seen, all Pelle is capable of doing is personal attack.

Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues. What a pity.

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.

"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.

"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.

As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it. It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.

The Woke are so pathetic.

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.

"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.

As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.

Oh, I've said that many times already. It's a pile of poo. I agree with
what JD has said about it, and added some more. You seem to live on an
island.

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.

You don't get high, or any, marks in philosophy exams with that.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.

"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.

As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.

Oh, I've said that many times already. It's a pile of poo. I agree with
what JD has said about it, and added some more. You seem to live on an
island.

You agree with jdeluise's wrong claim that my thought
experiment was a "false dilemma"? You are both so wrong.

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.

You don't get high, or any, marks in philosophy exams with that.

Hahahah! I spoke the truth: The Woke cowardice forced you to
ignore my question. jdeluise even incorrectly identified my
thought experiment as a "false dilemma".

br,
KK

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.

"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.

As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.

Oh, I've said that many times already. It's a pile of poo. I agree with
what JD has said about it, and added some more. You seem to live on an
island.

You agree with jdeluise's wrong claim that my thought
experiment was a "false dilemma"? You are both so wrong.

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.

You don't get high, or any, marks in philosophy exams with that.

Hahahah! I spoke the truth: The Woke cowardice forced you to
ignore my question. jdeluise even incorrectly identified my
thought experiment as a "false dilemma".

Unspeakably poor response. Wnen you stop seeing replies to your posts,
you know the reason why in advance.

[Kalevi Kolttonen]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.

Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.

"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.

As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.

Oh, I've said that many times already. It's a pile of poo. I agree with
what JD has said about it, and added some more. You seem to live on an
island.

You agree with jdeluise's wrong claim that my thought
experiment was a "false dilemma"? You are both so wrong.

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.

You don't get high, or any, marks in philosophy exams with that.

Hahahah! I spoke the truth: The Woke cowardice forced you to
ignore my question. jdeluise even incorrectly identified my
thought experiment as a "false dilemma".

Unspeakably poor response. Wnen you stop seeing replies to your posts,
you know the reason why in advance.

Like I said: I spoke the truth. There was nothing wrong with
my thought experiment. It was not a "false dilemma" even though
jdeluise mistakenly claimed so. You avoided the question
simply because of Woke cowardice, that is quite clear.

Now you are bragging about killfiling me. Go ahead. I know
your poor mental capabilies do not get you very far at all.

Maybe some day you will be free, too?

br,
KK

[TT]

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative

Actually they stab you with a knife. May also stomp on your head.

[bmoore]

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

I already said it was a false dilemma.  He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too.  It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.

What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.

But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?"  So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it.  Framed so there is no middle ground allowed.  Gosh, it sure
looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.

The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"

What if you had 2 kids and a brainwashing alien said it would make you hate one of them? Which would you pick? :-)

Post by Pelle Svanslös
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative are
caused by a religion and the religion only is preposterously dumb short
circuiting.
This kind of crap is what you typically hear in a dive for sophomores.
What's a fat fifty on mushrooms doing there.
--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[Pelle Svanslös]

Post by bmoore

Post by Pelle Svanslös

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen

I already said it was a false dilemma.  He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too.  It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.

What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.

But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?"  So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it.  Framed so there is no middle ground allowed.  Gosh, it sure
looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.

The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"

What if you had 2 kids and a brainwashing alien said it would make you hate one of them? Which would you pick? :-)

Sophie's choice? That is a real dilemma.

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
In Finland, we have no free speech or free press
for that matter. I am sad to say that Finland
resembles North-Korea in many ways.

I would say Keir Starmer's Britain reminds North Korea even more...

They have had fast-track show-trials to convict people who commented
this case *on social media*...

One even got 20 months prison time for a Facebook post.
He wrote: "Every man and their dog should be smashing fuck out Britannia
hotel."

Sounds like a totalitarian state.

[*skriptis]

Nice try.

[TT]

Post by Kalevi Kolttonen
Axel Muganwa Rudakubana

Axel Mutakuono