What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[Slanted]

Missing two important points:

- dedicate one hour a day to read my posts.
- dedicate two more hours a day to read the posts again and again untill you understand them, or give up.

Does it take you 2 hours of study to understand 1 of my posts? Wow.

Someone can make a hasty generalization like "Religion is Poison" in a few words. Refuting such dogma in a rational way requires presenting evidence and making arguments. People who don't want to read that evidence or understand those arguments are free to run away from them.

The conversation with @whenpillarsfall drags on and on because he keeps posting repetitious, irrelevant junk instead of RESPONDING to the evidence or arguments.

 

[Slanted]

'infectious disease' doesn't mean easily contagious

Really? Explain.

 

[Slanted]

First the so-called logical conclusion is 'concentration camps' or 'forced re-educaiton' or making religion illegal, because by the word poison it was inferred that this is an extremely dangerous thing that will destroy society if you don't take these actions

Then later, it can be 'milder' to just 'curtail' religion. Restricting religious people from teaching

These are the only ways to respond to religion apparently

Just like the only way to respond to a pseudoscience that teaches eugenics as the only way to a good human race..is to silence it, force re-education, or make it illegal to believe, or make camps, or ask all teachers if they believe in these bad eugenics ideas and block them all from being teachers

Straw man fallacy. My actual argument is found here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

Since @whenpillarsfall keeps running away from it, maybe you'd like to try addressing it on his behalf.

 

[Slanted]

'Religion' is poison in the sense that religions often have no good basis for their claims.... and yet they want to go around telling other people what is true....

Exactly like you and @whenpillarsfall, in other words. Dogmatism is dogmatism.

 

[Slanted]

Did anyone even say that religious people are ACtUALLy menttally ill

It matters not to @Slanted

He'll debate it anyway.

The only person debating that is you, @whenpillarsfall.

Why can't you respond to what I actually say?

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

You really will use ANY EXCUSE to avoid responding. I have criticized what you actually said, quoting where you actually said it. And instead of replying to that, you pretend that I am criticizing you for something you didn't say – even though I never said you said it. Absurd.

Do you have ANY response to my ACTUAL words?

 

[Truespin Domains]

The only person debating that is you, @whenpillarsfall.

Why can't you respond to what I actually say?

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

You really will use ANY EXCUSE to avoid responding. I have criticized what you actually said, quoting where you actually said it. And instead of replying to that, you pretend that I am criticizing you for something you didn't say – even though I never said you said it. Absurd.

Do you have ANY response to my ACTUAL words?

Addressed these points in my most recent posts. Then screenshotted again. Included lots of your quotes.

You are a liar.

There is no other word for it.

A complete and utter liar

 

[Truespin Domains]

This screenshot alone proves you are a liar. Clear for all to see. Absolutely no point talking to a dishonest person.

 

[Slanted]

you are utilizing the speech of a former US president

who is utilizing the idealism of a young American man
who was killed in a superfluous war
being killed as a victim of a stupid ego manic king ( the German king )
who started this war out of EGO issues

to promote your stuff
your position
your being
and your company epik

@frank-germany, Under what circumstances would you permit the Epik CEO to express a view in public or make an online statement WITHOUT accusing him of doing it in order to promote his company?

If Rob circulates content we find abhorrent, then we'll criticize that. Conversely, if Rob circulates a speech by Ronald Reagan that you admire, you will accuse Rob of cynically "using" that content for self-promotion.

Seems like a "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situation. As far as I can see, you will criticize any utterance by Rob, and the only behavior you would accept from him is complete permanent silence.

Don't you think that's a tad unfair? By all means, criticize what Rob says if you disagree with it. But if Rob says or does something you don't disagree with, then why go out of your way to interpret it in a bad light – as cynical self-promotion?

Is Rob really not allowed to circulate a speech by Ronald Reagan on Memorial Day? Such knee-jerk antagonism is not healthy. If you criticize literally everything someone does or says, then any legitimate criticisms from you will seem less credible. "Boy who cried wolf" scenario.

 

[Slanted]

This screenshot alone proves you are a liar. Clear for all to see. Absolutely no point talking to a dishonest person.

Show attachment 120096

@whenpillarsfall, You're hilarious. That screenshot shows you trying to put words in my mouth. And I immediately contradict you, quote what you actually said, and criticize what you actually said.

Obviously, you STILL don't understand what a reductio ad absurdum proof is. Before posting more nonsense, I suggest you READ what I said in the post you are STILL running away from:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

Respond to that. Any more verbiage that you post is just an evasion. Quit running away! You've been doing it for over a week. Engage with what I have actually said.

 

[Truespin Domains]

@whenpillarsfall, You're hilarious. That screenshot shows you trying to put words in my mouth. And I immediately contradict you, quote what you actually said, and criticize what you actually said.

Obviously, you STILL don't understand what a reductio ad absurdum proof is. Before posting more nonsense, I suggest you READ what I said in the post you are STILL running away from:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

Respond to that. Any more verbiage that you post is just an evasion. Quit running away! You've been doing it for over a week. Engage with what I have actually said.

You claimed you never suggested that I was suggesting violence. I have posted two quotes from you in which you claim my position can only logically lead to me supporting violence.

You are a joke, and a liar.

 

[Slanted]

You claimed you never suggested that I was suggesting violence.

X = Religion is Poison / Plague / Mental Illness
Y = Policy of repression toward Religion

I did not claim you believe Y.

On the contrary, I claimed that Y should rationally follow from your belief X. Then I pointed out that you don't believe Y. And the conclusion should be to abandon X.

You are a joke, and a liar.

Am I? I have said REPEATEDLY that you don't want violence, going back many days now. For example, here on page 64:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7249818

And here on page 66:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

You are fully aware of that – or should be – by page 72. Yet you keep repeating your disingenuous claim. Why? As usual, to avoid replying to what I have actually said.

Why is it so hard for you to engage in debate? You seem fundamentally unable to respond to me. Instead, you just keep adding more and more irrelevant verbiage that doesn't address anything I've said.

 

[Slanted]

@whenpillarsfall,

Let's be absolutely clear. From page 66 to page 72, I have challenged you to respond to this:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

And you keep running away.

(Actually from page 64 to page 72, since my post on page 66 repackages an earlier question that you have been fleeing.)

 

[Truespin Domains]

On the contrary, I claimed that Y should rationally follow from your belief X. Then I pointed out that you don't believe Y

And as been explained to you a gazillion times by many people, this is faulty logic.

The simple example being that people that are sick with an infectious disease aren't automatically euthanized by the doctor.

Oh, another quote in which you definitely weren't insinuating that my position required the support of violence...

If you believe that Religion = Poison, then you must accept your moral responsibility to exterminate, contain, or ban that Poison, since the damage caused by that Poison – throughout human history and in the lives of the billions of religious people infected by that mental illness today – is far worse than the negative side effects of eliminating it from society.

 

[Slanted]

And as been explained to you a gazillion times by many people, this is faulty logic.

When? I've never seen you address my question from page 64 or 66. Give it a try!

The simple example being that people that are sick with an infectious disease aren't automatically euthanized by the doctor.

Doesn't address my argument at all. Straw man fallacy. Go to my post on page 66 and answer it, if you can.

Oh, another quote in which you definitely weren't insinuating that my position required the support of violence...

Unbelievable. You still don't get it – no matter how many times I explain it to you.

 

[Slanted]

@whenpillarsfall,

Let's be absolutely clear. From page 66 to page 72, I have challenged you to respond to this:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

And you keep running away.

(Actually from page 64 to page 72, since my post on page 66 repackages an earlier question that you have been fleeing.)

You're still running away. Go to page 66, and answer that post.

 

[Truespin Domains]

When? I've never seen you address my question from page 64 or 66. Give it a try!



Doesn't address my argument at all. Straw man fallacy. Go to my post on page 66 and answer it, if you can.



Unbelievable. You still don't get it – no matter how many times I explain it to you.

Let's do a thought exercise.

Let's replace the word poison with "bubonic plague"

Let's assume there's an outbreak of bubonic plague, a highly infectious condition.

Do I, by accepting that the bubonic plague is terrible for humanity, have to wipe out all people with the condition?

Or, @Slanted, is it possible that I might look for a less dramatic solution, such as providing antibiotics?

Because in your "if you accept A you must support B" argument, this isn't possible.

But this has all been explained to you.

 

[Slanted]

Let's do a thought exercise.

Let's replace the word poison with "bubonic plague"

Let's assume there's an outbreak of bubonic plague, a highly infectious condition.

Do I, by accepting that the bubonic plague is terrible for humanity, have to wipe out all people with the condition?

Or, @Slanted, is it possible that I might look for a less dramatic solution, such as providing antibiotics?

You're going in circles, repeating yourself. Read the post you're avoiding.

 

[Truespin Domains]

You're going in circles, repeating yourself. Read the post you're avoiding.

Answer the question.

 

[Slanted]

Answer the question.

You brought this up ages ago, and I answered it on page 63 and again on page 64:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248435

and

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7249818

You're repeating yourself and changing the subject, going in circles, exactly as I described here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-70#post-7254258

If you've forgotten my earlier answer to your question, you can re-read it on page 63 / 64.

How many times do I need to ask you to respond to my post from page 66?

 

[Truespin Domains]

You brought this up ages ago, and I answered it on page 63:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248435

You're repeating yourself and changing the subject, going in circles, exactly as I described here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-70#post-7254258

If you've forgotten my earlier answer to your question, you can re-read it on page 63.

How many times do I need to ask you respond to my post from page 66?

No, in that post you tried to suggest that in my mind religion was the equivalent of a world ending disease, and that in that scenario the only reasonable option would be extreme measures - such as extermination, special camps etc.

But as usual, you completely misrepresented my previous statements. I'd never said religion was the only bad force in the world, I'd never said that it will kill us all imminently, I'd never said that it needs to be excised with immediate effect. I'd not even claimed that not a single good thing had ever come from religion - only that the net effect is overwhelmingly negative on society.

So as usual, you adopted an extreme and illogical position, not based on what I had actually said, to try and prove your point.

As I said, you are a dishonest debater, that inserts lies, misrepresentation and finally insults (bigot) into your arguments.