₦airaland Forum

triplechoice:
My friend use your head and understand why made that comment, and drop the insult and patronizing talk. It's inappropriate for you to talk down and insult the intelligence of those whom you cheated in the past . If it were offline, would you dare open your mouth to insult past victims of your fraudulent activities when confronted ?

The defence you just came up as nothing whatsoever to do with your past misdeeds or what I believe you're currently doing to evade detection . I already provided evidences of how you used more than 3 monikers in a single thread to duplicate another's persons write up in another forum and use it here to reply to those you were arguing with. You copied verbatim. So don't lie and pretend.

And stop trying to divorce your past crooked
behavior from whatever you doing now. Allow your followers to judge you by your actions . Action speaks louder than voice.

And also don't forget to respect deepsight, the only person charitable enough to tolerate your nonsense.
Before now , once you noticed nobody wants to engage you after been found out, ,the next thing is to create another account and continue with the same thing. Now you think you can insult your way back to relevance .That won't work.

Yes, when you read very wide, it influences how you express yourself. Everyone who can express his or herself very well has benefited from that. But in your case there are enough evidences you copied verbatim in the past and so based on that nobody can guarantee you haven't found a way to evade detection so you can continue cloning.

Unless you're pretending not to know, some chatbot possess the feature to help you rewrite what you copied elsewhere so nobody knows it's AI generated. If you get it directly from chatbot it's easy to detect that. But when you steal it from elsewhere and ask it to rewrite for you in a style you have programmed into it , it's difficult to detect I have never used chatbot for anything and I don't intend until I can be sure that using it doesn't reduce my capacity to think for myself. But I know what it's capable of from experts and some of my family and friends currently using it.

Please respect yourself and don't think you can fool somebody like me. I said," tell a lie once, and your other truths becomes doubtful". You have been living a lie for years and you now expect what?

Please shut up and don't dictate for me what I should think or not think about you. I still see you as a fraud. You cannot convince me otherwise and your latest antics of demanding I focus on ",this" moniker is senseless and stupid .

And who's trolling you? Do you even know what it means to troll? It's too early to separate yourself from you dubious and ignoble past . Something you did for years which became part of your character is what you want to casually dismiss as unimportant in less than 3 months after disappearing from that thread.?

You cannot whitewash it or make seem as if it is of no relevance. What you did before wil continue to follow you everywhere on this board until it's seen you have completely changed


No . Your interpretation is wayward. It's very far from what I meant.

You're not making sense. I think the facelessness of this forum is influencing how you're reacting . You're not really thinking. When you hide behind a phone you say things unconsciously you dare not say offline.
Nobody in their right senses would do business with you if they found out you have been changing your phone number like you have been changing your monikers. It's a huge red flag . US and American embassies will never ever approve your Visa application
because of that suspicious behavior. It's fraudulent behaviour. and everybody knows that except you who's pretending not to know.

Or you think you can defend yourself in any law Court with all the nonsense you keep repeating.

" My Lord I'm not guilty because I have changed.. Please pardon me. "


The least you can get from that is a reduced sentence but you will surely serve time.





. How can it be the same. First of all, they admit, unlike you, how exactly they use it.

And not copying verbatim another person's write up like you have done and asking AI to rewrite so nobody can detect you stole the original.

The reason is because you past antecedents is making difficult to trust you.

Im not shedding any such tears and stop calling me your dear. I don't want to be a "dear" to a fraudster.


You in the habit of making reckless statements. Name calling and insults won't erase your past shameful behavior that is firmly fixed round your neck like an albatross. People will continue to use it to judge you unless you respect yourself



1. But yours is too close . Someone who has been defrauding other businesses is not immediately employable anywhere in the world. Anybody who risk employing such a person is either taking a huge risk of or is into something shady so he needs a criminal like himself to work with.

2. You only said that because it concerns you. If it has to do with financial matters, forget it, nothing like rehabilitation. Go and rehabilitate yourself and look for employment elsewhere where you're not known. Would you rehabilitate a paedophile and then employ him to take care of your female children in your absence.?




Please forget this talk It's cheap manipulation.


.

I never said it not possible to change but not overnight. I'm certain you will to go back to your vomit from time to time whenever you need to get something out quicky or don't know what else to respond with.Poverty makes some people sucuum easily to temptation.

Merely declaring you have changed won't automatically change the structure of your brain. Neural plasticity is not achievable that way.

Yes ,I believe you. The real you is coming out. But it's not the same quality as the one you produced for deepsight which I followed. Your latest replies are lacking certain key elements like the ones I said you cloned.

I will mention just one. The unnecessary and sometimes ridiculous insertion of LMAO nearly everywhere in your write up made it appear not natural.

I will keep the others to me self, and observe you with them.

it was deepsight quoted I mentioned if not I was done with you. After now, no note no matter what you reply with.


One final thing you're not female but male. Don't ask me how I know. Nairaland is not as faceless as you think.

.

I've read your latest write-up, and while there's a whole basketful of funny claims and statements [like how I choose to use "lol" and "lmao", or the false assumption that texts rewritten by chat bots cannot be detected], along with outright personal insults, that you've intentionally made here, that I'd take pleasure ripping apart, or firing back at, on a really good day, I'm going to fall on my sword here, to end this farce of an exchange, as I frankly see no point dragging this issue any further. I have only myself to blame, for all this. I started all of this really, many years ago, and that's why I really have no legs to stand on now, to judge someone else. So on that front, you're right. I can't divorce the past from the present.

I'm stupid, I'm a liar, I'm a cheat, I steal, I have no moral compass, and I can never change, and even when I do, it won't matter because of sins past. I hope this is good enough for you.

On that note, I'll be retiring permanently from this website, and will not re-emerge in any form or fashion in the future. I was getting frustrated and bored with this forum anyways, on many fronts, so I hardly see myself returning. You probably won't believe any of this anyway, because I'm a serial liar after all. I mean you know me just too well, don't you. You know the day I was born. You know what type of food I eat. You know the type of clothes I wear. You probably know where I am right at this very moment.

I would deactivate this moniker, and a slew of others, but many of them were registered with throwaway emails I can't retrieve. I would swear too, but I'm not spiritual, so I think it's pointless. If you want me to, I would though. Or don't bother. You'll probably have another response anyway, still throwing more shots, so at this point, I simply cannot be arsed. I hope my e-death serves you well. I'm sorry for burdening you with my existence on this forum. Take this final post from me anyway you wish to.

Mac Miller - I Can See


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGxOUnlHpGI&pp=ygUUTWFjIG1pbGxlciBpIGNhbiBzZWU%3D

The melody here is just so nostalgic. Takes me back to simpler times.

triplechoice:
At the moment ,It's not about the content but the style which made it very easy for me to identify you again as Jessicarabbit .Past evidences from your comments shows you're still cloning the writing style of the person you copied verbatim from.

This type of reasoning doesn't even make any sense, smh. Whose writing style am I cloning exactly, hmmm? Why don't you go ahead, and carry out a linguistic analysis of all my writings, and actually demonstrate that I'm cloning any anybody, within or without this forum, huh? Can you listen to yourself? With all due respect, don't you see how dumb you sound? I do a massive amount of reading, FYI, be it academic, fictional and whatnot, online and offline, so is it entirely out of the realm of possibility, that I can develop cadences, vocabulary, and argumentative and even sentence structures, by constant reading of similarly structured content?

1. The bolded is another lie. There are evidences that you copied extensively another's write up verbatim . I already shared a link here to one of the threads where you where exposed. Go through it again and see for yourself and come back to explain how it wasn't verbatim.

I was talking of this moniker only, first of all, so you weren't paying attention. I have stated that this moniker is blameless, when it comes to any form of blatant intellectual theft, and your inability to actually prove any wrongdoing with this moniker is further proof of my point. I hope you're starting to see why I called you a bitter, slanderous troll? It's not out of disrespect, it is merely my observation of how you're moving, whether you realize it or not.

2. I never said you were bitter. You were the one who accused me of bitterness. Go back and read.

I've gone back to read, and it was you who tried to flip my accusations of you being bitter, by saying it was I who actually felt that way. Perhaps you think you never made such claims because you didn't state them explicitly, but it was obviously implied with your response.

3. And after owning up to your past, you think the coast is now clear for you to continue with the same dishonest activity undetected?

As I said earlier, you have the right to your opinions of my character, and nothing I can say or do can change that perception. The only fact I've established here, is that I have committed no wrongdoing with this moniker, and that is my truth. You don't have to believe it for it to be any more or less true for me. It's entirely your prerogative.

There's a thread on this forum were someone accused you of using AI to reply him very quickly .You replied and admitted to using it to type sometimes. If you admitted to that, then it's also very possible given your past antecedents that you're using it to clone other people's writing style to impress.Yes.

Well, if you feel that way, then it's fine. I know I'm not using any assistance to respond to you. But it's funny you brought up that exchange I had sometime ago. I'm curious to know what your opinion is on writers and journalists who readily admit to using AI for correction of their scripts, checking their grammar, transcriptions etc. Are they illegitimate writers? Are they frauds to you?

It's said that, tell a lie once,then your other truths becomes very doubtful. But in your case , your have told a thousand lies in the past. So, it's now very very difficult to trust you again to engage you in any conversation. Nobody is there with you to know what you're actually doing to reply them .

So you know "nobody is actually here with me", but still you sound so sure about what I'm doing, or not doing, in the comfort of my own room .

You reaping the consequences of your past actions. If you truly have changed,just ignore me and continue with your business and allow time to prove you right. That's all. Don't worry yourself too much. There's nothing I can do to you whether you have changed or not.

Take heed to your own advice, my dear, and quit shedding crocodile tears on my mentions, undermining your own principles about time, by repeated accusations that don't do anything, according to you.

Yes ,once bitten twice shy. No conspiracies at all. My behavior is in perfect order and shouldn't be described the way you just describe it.If you're going to be employed anywhere, your past activities must be looked into and not dismissed or downplayed before you're considered.

Not a terrible analogy, except:

1> Some background checks are restricted to specific time periods.

2> Some offices have rehabilitation principles, and don't just outrightly disqualify all potential employees.

But here, you're acting like a religious person (a new convert to Christianity ) who has deluded himself into thinking that since he has confessed his sins, automatically he is now a new person. "All old things have past away and everything has become new" That's certainly not true.

I haven't acted like anything. I have only insisted that as far as this moniker is concerned, I'm sufficiently blameless. That's all. Of course, this doesn't wipe away the past, obviously, and I have already alluded to this when I earlier said that the internet never forgets.

It's not easy for an adult like yourself to change their behavior overnight. The science says so ,not me. Neural pathways which controls your past habits are firmly rooted in your brain and it's not something you can remove easily by merely declaring you have changed. I think I know what you don't know about what's actually controlling your behaviour. If you know the same thing you will not address me arrogantly about your current situation.

That's fine. I believe I'm making sufficient progress, through conscious effort and practice. You talk about neural pathways, but you forgot about the science of neuroplasticity. I won't even attempt to belabor the point though. Thanks for the veiled condescension, all the same.

It's was only late last year you abandoned your Jessicarabbit moniker and this is February. So based on it will take some for you to completely change and earn the trust of those you cheated.

Dude, you've made up your mind already. I get it. You've made it perfectly clear that nothing I can say will prompt your reconsideration, even in the absence of current evidence.

Just give it time and don't try to rush it. Use your creativity to develop your own style of writing so nobody connects you with your past.

This is my style now, sorry. I can't alter natural expression. If it reads inauthentic to you, then that's your kettle of fish. This is how I write and structure my posts, and I couldn't change it even if I tried, lol.

Let's forget this unless you still have something to say.

I've been ready to forget this ever since you brought it up, but you're the one hell bent on reopening old wounds. So you can drop the pretentious facade of tacitly claiming the moral high ground here. Thank you.

triplechoice:
Your bitterness accusation expresses how you personally feel . I'm not bitter but saying it exactly the way it is.

I haven't made any irrelevant claims. All my claims are very applicable and fully supported by evidence from you past and current outputs

Despite the fact you were hiding behind a new moniker,it was very easy for me to identify you as Jessicarabbit , Tamaratonye1 and the other monikers you have used because you continued to say it exactly the same way as before . Nothing has changed yet you lied you have made a clean break from the past.

I said, it's not possible to write exactly like another person all the time. You can copy another person's ideas, nothing wrong with that,but to say it exactly the way they have said it without giving credit is unacceptable.

And ,I cannot be fooled by you using AI to clone the writing style of others .

Just be yourself and say it like yourself and you will be good. Your uniqueness as a human being should be reflected in how you uniquely express yourself.

And be aware I'm not condemning you as a person but what you are doing to deceive the public . If you but in the hard work, you can do better than the person whose writing style you continue to duplicate to impress.

Sow your own seed and stop reaping from another person's hardwork.




I described exactly what you have been doing for a long time. Ignoring it, is living in denial and engaging in self deceit so you can continue as before.

Nawa .

Oga triplechoice, if any of my posts with this moniker have been written with AI, please present convincing proof and quit shedding crocodile tears in my mentions. Why is that such an uphill task for you, hmmm?

Smh, I'm bitter, but you're the one desperately trying to pin a tail on the donkey, except you don't even have the tail in the first place, lol. Tsk. I never denied any past wrongdoings, and I have already laid out the full history of my engagements with this forum on this very thread, and I have demonstrated both presently, and even at some points in the past that I can generate responses with or without AI and/or any other external assistance/s. That being said, I can't know everything, so I do refer to blogs and news articles when I've reached a dead end, but I never copy them verbatim. I read, understand, become better informed of the given subject and figure out how it applies particularly to the conversation I'm having.

I've used AI quite a lot in the past, so probably why my posts seem to be formatted as such, even when I don't actually use it. But run it through the best AI detectors, and you'll discover that it ain't no AI, lol. I've been writing IRL, for long before AI even came into the picture, just so you know. Anyways, I'm just repeating myself at this point, because I've already shared a bulk of the entire history, as well as my reasons to Deep Sight Z.

I don't need you to believe me though. In fairness to you, you have every right to be skeptical, based on past antecedents. My only gripe is that if you're going to accuse someone publicly, in an entirely separate context, you should care about the evidence, instead whinging like a petulant child over elaborate, unevidenced conspiracies, lmao.

triplechoice:
I'm not responsible for how you feel.

I never claimed you were. At what point did I imply this?

You're still doing the same thing but in a different way which I already pointed out

Okay, and I'll add that to the growing list of irrelevant claims I won't be losing any sleep over.

I cannot be fooled by anyone claiming to have change his character overnight.

Good for you. Your opinion has been noted, filed, and duly ignored. Ciao.

triplechoice:
I see you're greatly seduced by the illusions he threw at you to make you accept he has abandoned his shameful past. He hasn't.

The evidences are still there in his cloned conversation with you on this thread that he hasn't changed one bit . Unfortunately ,you're not seeing it.

He's very unrepentant and hardened without any remorse for his past deceit ,and only said what he said to earn your trust so he continues cheating you.

While you were working hard to reply him, he was lazily stealing other people's conversations from elsewhere or using AI ,and using them to reply you as if they came from his empty head.

I believe you didn't go through the link I shared for you to see his past antecedents he claimed to have abandoned. If you had done so, you would have observed that nothing has changed.

If truly he has changed then his latest responses should show that. But it's still
the same writing style with the same amount of wittiness It's never , never possible for two different persons to have exactly the same writing style . No way.

He should be himself by reasonimg and writing like himself and stop the foolery.

Well, it's your choice if you want to continue the conversation with him.Who am I to stop you?

FYI , these days, it's possible to use chatbot to clone the writing style of anyone . I believe that's what he's currently doing to deceive himself that he's capable of producing exactly what he has been stealing from others over the years.

It's better for you to engage a chatbot directly and make it reply like Socrates or any other
great thinker you admire than to engage someone here who's fooling you with the same technology or even worse stealing it from another person.

I'm starting to think you're just a bitter, slanderous troll trying to get my goat, because for the life of me, I can't seem to understand how hard it is for you to prove that I've used AI or copied posts from another website with this new account, instead of constantly taking us back to address allegations that I already admitted to be guilty of in the past. Are you really trying to expose me or are you just fishing for validation from people online? Here's a useful hint: present convincing proof of any wrongdoing with this moniker, and maybe people will start to take you more seriously. At any rate, I only responded this time because I happened to see this post in my mentions. This will be the last time I'll address these insipid prevarications over practically nothing.

ChiefOkporghe:
See another of Dtruthspeaker brother-in-rape

Cc: The Devils Bride

Sick people everywhere my dear .

DeepSightZ:
Its not that its nothing but the fact that she opened up and took responsibility is enough for me to discountenance it.

@ The Devils Bride I intend to continue when my proper account is unbanned in about ten days. I dont want to lose records on temporary accounts like this one.

No biggie. Please give a mention when you do.

Steep:
what do you even mean by being moral? Because if we are just a bunch of atoms being moral means absolutely nothing. What freedom? In your world view free will does not exist. Pleasure is nothing more than a chemical release which can be synthesis in the lab. Why are you obsessed? I am only describing your world view. Morality does exist in the athsietc world view, it's all Bunch of atoms competing for meaningless existence.

Truthseeker10:
What exactly is morality?

My dear/s, we're the ones who create meaning. It's not just out there, waiting for you to come along, and discover it, lol. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that freely chosen moral behavior, which arises from reason and empathy, as opposed to some supernatural all-seeing eye, is far more meaningful than the religious concept, of humans as pets for God, jumping through hoops and bending their backs over, to satiate his fragile ego.

SeraphicWind:
@ The Devils Bride you can only fool weak souls. I don't really know your intention on this forum but I will advise you to be extremely careful of how you live life. You are taking an extremely big risk. The day the angels of God almighty will wipe you from this earth, you are totally gone!

God's grace is still calling you to unity. I am assuming you are not a demon masquerading as an intellectual or atheist.

Now, what can you say about these thread below? Do you still believe there are no astrals or demonic manipulations?

Chief, I have travelled to over 50 countries on missions. There is no country on earth where they don't practice witchcraft. From Denmark to Norway even to far East Russia! Billions of witches.

You can see this lady in question practicing broad daylight witch craft. Juxtapose the doll she is holding in her hands with the number of the player she targeted. You can see that footballer in great pains not knowing someone was pinning him.

Can I tell you something Mr Man? You can argue from now till thy kingdom come but this fooolish witch has made the greatest mistake of her life. She has broken her coven rules.

She is going to HELL-FIRE in the next four days. You know how? So many human angels will start praying for her to die. You will see it. St Michael the archangel will murder this woman. She is gone! Many souls are praying for her to die right now.

LilMissFavvy, do you remember when I told you that these guys manipulate everything? From sleeping to betting to children! They manipulate even small children to enter swimming pools and die.

They get dolls, write the names of these children on the doll, use oil as the blood of the children, use demonic powers to bind into the mind of these children and then manipulate them to to jump into swimming pools and drown.

These children did nothing to them. Witches love it when they hurt people. Same with wizards. They derive joy from destruction. It is the works of darkness. As the parents are crying, the person that enforced that wickedness will be in one part of the earth and smile all along. It is 100% real.

jaephoenix, are you still doubting the works of darkness? God almighty have exposed this witch. Look at that footballer in pains. It is this wicked witch that is stabbing him to death. Extremely vile human beings invoking dark powers and spirits.

There is something called OBSIDIAN MIRRORS that these wild animals use too. They use it to monitor people. Everything in one's house that reflects can be used by these demons to mirror who they want to kill.

From Amoled Televisions to Mirrors to mobile phones! They use these things to manipulate and kill people for fun. It is true. These spiritual bandits use everything to mirror. Even laptop screens.

LilMissFavvy, have you heard about ASTRAL PROJECTION? It is people like these that use yoga meditations and reflections to SPIRITUALLY BIND INTO THE MIND of humans.

They will then manipulate them to either jump from a 5 story building or to run under a moving truck. They used it to kill one healthy Igbo guy in South Africa.

A healthy man that doesn't use drugs suddenly started shouting, ran outside and flew under a speeding trailer. Crushed to death instantly!

A wicked human being binded a destructive demon called Agrat Baht Malat into him.

Stupid things!

The only verified power that crushes the wickedness of these wild animals is the POWERFUL BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST.

If you are a Christian reading this, never you forget these 3 things everyday as you

(1) Plead the Blood of Jesus Christ to defeat all works of darkness and murder your spiritual enemies.

(2) Drink the blood of Jesus Christ for strength in spiritual battles

(3) Sprinkle the blood of Jesus Christ on your life and the lives of your loved ones for total cover and protection from the devil and all works of darkness.

If you don't obey these things as you pray, you are totally gone.

For the love of all things sane, SeraphicWind, abeg let's stop conjuring spurious, supertitious nonsense, from the ether, lmao. Please log off, log out, and then go be with your heartthrob. Your valentine awaits you, no doubt bewildered by your absence, while you're too busy here wandering aimlessly, shouting at clouds, and fighting with cyber-witches .

...and by the way, you're still contradicting your own thread, lol.

Steep:
If life is a product of random mindless atoms bumping on each other, then life ultimately has no meaning, good and evil are just figment of imagination, heck what does imagination even mean. Rape, murder, stealing etc are matter of taste, love is just a product of chemical reaction, why punish a set of atoms for crimes. The atheistic world view ultimate lead to despair, chaos and nihilism, atheists cannot successfully live out their world view.

More often than not, it's the people least acquainted with the freedom and/or pleasure of creating their own meaning and purpose, that are obsessed with the concept of "meaninglessness". If you're incapable of ethical behavior, without being nudged and coerced by divine threats, then you probably need to sit down, and re-examine your own moral compass, lmao.

triplechoice:
You can continue with the deception and fool others with it but not me.

This is turning into a comedy. So by coming out myself, as a first hand witness, to corroborate your own claims, that I was indeed guilty in the past, of the acts you cited, I'm apparently pulling the wool over people's eyes, hmmm? Very interesting .

You know on your own you're incapable of producing all the things you have stolen from elsewhere and pasted here as yours.

Like I said, whatever you think of my intelligence, matters little to me. The quality of my posts on this website, without any use of AI or external articles, speaks for itself. I enjoy debates, and participating in them. I don't use them, like some of you do here, to show the size/s of metaphorical balls, lmao.

RachaelsaidNorth exposed you by providing links to where you copied verbatim the responses of an atheist in a popular atheist forum to use here as yours.

At least, get the name right. It was ReubenSandwich. Plus, I already admitted that I was guilty of this in the past. We're not in disagreement. So I'm curious, what's really your motive here?

This not witch-hunting but exposing you as a plagiarist and pathological liar.

I already exposed myself, far more than your probably expected, and now you're forced to grasp at straws, smh. You didn't know about Sabrina now, did you? Your opinion of my character is about as consequential to me as the cockroach that died outside my porch. I've readily acknowledged, and subsequently distanced myself from, the questionable actions of my past. Your approval or censure is entirely inconsequential to any of my future interactions on this forum. You were invited to scan my comments on this thread, to check for AI or plagiarism, but for some reason you've refused, because you don't want to let go of the narrative you've probably spent hours to craft. Is there an agenda here, perhaps, hmmm? Does it rustle your jimmies that I enjoy calling out Christians? Does it make you uncomfortable?

Plagiarism is against the rules of this forum. So expect your ban very soon

If I have been guilty of this charge, with my new moniker, then so be it.

Your behavior I'm sure is a serious source of embarrassment to other atheist here who have continued to remain silent and not say anything despite the numerous times you have been exposed in the past .

It's fine, we don't all have to get along. I myself, am a big bad lone wolf, lol. If you need self-validation from other members of the forum, I personally don't. I don't crave the fleeting approval of strangers online. I'm not here to cultivate a social circle. Maybe it's high time, you spared yourself the troubles of experiencing vicarious outrage on behalf of people who are blissfully unaware of the emotions you've needlessly invested here.

Deepsight , unfortunately, seems to have given you the moral justification to continue .Go ahead until you get banned and create another account to continue with your fake life. SMH

Had DeepSight joined your bandwagon, I would've still got my ten toes down. Keep fishing for petty scandals and controversy on an online forum, when there are bigger and more important things going on in the real world, lmao.

DeepSightZ:
This openness and honesty is much appreciated and I can tell you that I am not bothered or concerned about the past especially as you have been open and honest about it. I am only concerned in the substance of what we discuss. I will continue as I said. Been busy at work. Cheers.

It's fine. Ready whenever you are.

---

Oh, and before the witch-hunters and private investigators turn up to show out, this is a comprehensive list of the primary monikers I've used on this forum:

XxSabrinaxX, Tamaratonye 1 & 5, Uche40, JessicaRabbit, Thorrn, DaughterOfAllah, TheQueenIsHere.

There were some I used during the ReubenSandwich saga, but I can't remember. If you're so inclined, though, to keep digging into the past, whilst everyone is living here and now in the present, then you can go knock yourself out, lol.

Happy hunting !

[quote author=AlbertNewton post=134080094][/quote]This is JessicaRabbit. What do you wish to talk about?

EmperorCaesar:
Why did you run away completely?

Dont wanna believe you were so soundly defeated with the other moniker that you had to abandon it to create another, to fight weak theists...Predator shii


Cant join in all these biblical argument, when next i see you on any Biological Science thread or even DNA related topic, I will come over again to devour you...I'm glad to know you're fine tho
Albertnewton quoted you on this thread just yesterday morning. Try take on his challenge https://www.nairaland.com/8148371/dna-test-results-lies-there/2#134080094

Run away, completely? You people make me laugh .

Weren't you the one who latched onto the AI responses as an excuse to abscond from the debate? Come on now, you don't have to tell lies. You know fully well, that I addressed your accusations, and you came back with nothing. Go back and see that you never responded to my last post. I just took it that you've found a stellar reason to evade further arguments, and I didn't blame you for that, as I perfectly understood the context.

Tone it down with the braggadocious waffle, though. With or without AI, I can confidently say that your capacity for logic and reasoning, is unimpressive. You're average, at best. I already pointed out my reasons for using AI back then. So I have enough confidence in my own intellect to say that amateurs like you don't even register as a threat to me, sans any enhancements. But please keep looking for my attention, it's clear that after all these months, I'm still living, rent free, inside your small head, lmao .

triplechoice:
The quality of the responses you appreciate from him is from copy and paste. They're not his.

The person behind the moniker, TheDevilsbride, is the same as Jessicarabbit ,tamaratonye1, an intellectual thief who's notorious for shamelessly stealing the work of others in another forum and using them here as his.

There's a thread ( I will search for it and share the link)where was exposed by another nairalander, RachaelsaidNorth , who detailed for everyone how he was stealing other people's comments and arguments from a popular atheist forum and using them to respond to comments here on nairaland .

After that exposure, he stopped commenting and abandoned the account without saying a word .

Now, the fool who is acting like an actual devil thinks everyone has forgotten and wants to continue with the deception using TheDevilsbride to pretend who he's not .

I have seen you engaged him before when he was using Jessicarabbit but it seems you have forgotten.

Apart from stealing other people's comments,he also rely greatly on AI generated responses to respond.

So , ignore him . He's not worth your time.

Later in the day when I'm less busy I will search for those threads where the fool was exposed so you know the actual person you're conversing with. But before then, just type Jessicarabbit or tamaratonye1 posts alongside yours deepsight on your browser and it will bring up some evidences for you to see.

Before I begin, I just wanted to make a single fact known here: every scintillating sentence on this thread, every riposte, and every devastating takedown from me, on this particular thread is original, homespun, certified, and unadulterated by plagiarism or any AI-generated gobbledygook. If you doubt this: you have my permission to go ahead and check for yourself.

I wasn't going to respond to this post originally, but perhaps my antics with my previous monikers have rubbed you the wrong way, and you've decided that it's best to poison the well, pour dirt on my name and try to ostracize me on this forum, and so I'm going to take the time to address this. I'm not going to hide anything here, I'm well aware that I do not have the most solid reputation on this forum, and unfortunately the internet never forgets. Whatever decisions anyone chooses to take in light of my subsequent explanations, is none of my business. I'm still going to comment on this forum, if and when I please, to anyone I see fit.

Now, first things first, since the cat is out the bag, JessicaRabbit, curiously enough, wasn't my first moniker on this forum. That would be XxSabrinaxX. Triplechoice, with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, saw it fit to expose the truth of my erstwhile moniker, JessicaRabbit, as if I had ever attempted to deliberately conceal this trivial tidbit. I had, in fact, already confessed my alter ego to another user on this same thread. Now, before XxSabrinaxX, I was a guest on Nairaland since 2017, before joining the fray as a full-fledged member in 2019. Prior to this, I already cut my teeth on Reddit and many other online sites, as a Christian, that is, until the persuasive arguments of atheists on this very website, among others, led me to becoming an atheist in late 2018.

Accusations of plagiarism: Guilty as charged, especially during my XxSabrinaxX days. I was only a kid in school with a bad case of impatience, in addition to a serious penchant for procrastination, due to school work of course. Instead of taking my time to craft thoughtful responses, I'd rather scour the internet for slick articles, and post them without due attribution, then call it a day. If I'm being honest though, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the thrill of it all, with youthful exuberance and all that jazz. But, I raise my hands and admit that I took it too far, even lifting posts from other chat forums and passing them off as my own. (triplechoice, the name you're looking for is Reubensandwich)

Accusations of AI: When I rebooted with JessicaRabbit, my aim was to be more original with my responses, but for lack of patience again, I discovered a nifty workaround: I'd just scribble down my raw, unfiltered thoughts, directly feeding them to the app, and out would come polished, articulate responses, that warranted the AI suspicions. But the arguments themselves, are still very much from my own little head, which is why I'm able go back and forth with anyone, either way, for as long as possible.

Now, it seems triplechoice is trying to use my antecedents on this forum to cast doubts on my intellectual credibility. But let me make one thing clear: I come here to read arguments, learn new things, banter and have fun. What matters to me, is the substance of the argument, not whether I'm smart or not. The forum isn't the way it used to be though, in terms of intellectual stimulation, so these days I frequent Reddit more often than I do here. But for the avoidance of doubt, no: I no longer lift articles, or use AI, and you can scan any of the posts I've made on this very thread to verify for yourself, if you're still having any doubts. Everything I say, starting with this moniker, on this forum is entirely a product of my own cerebral machinations. When confronted with the unknown, I only retreat to my vast amount academic resources (privileged as I am to be able to access them), devouring them with gusto before returning to contribute to any argument. Now, if you'd like to continue castigating me for sins past, then be my guest. I won't be losing any sleep over it. Quote me, don't quote me -- I remain indifferent. I didn't exactly arrive to this forum, looking for friends. In fact, my previous moniker's signature explicitly stated as much. I will, however, continue to respond to any threads that pique my interest, quote and counterquote, until the moderators see fit to silence me by themselves. And with that, I dust my shoes and exit this thread, having exhausted my interest in the absence of further comments and contributions from DeepSightZ.

...and no, I'm no male, but thanks for the veiled attack, hidden throughout your write-up, triplechoice.

tctrills:
Again, this is you repeating all you have said.

Right back at you.

Unfortunately, I could not convince you of the incorrectness of your thinking.

Again, the eye sees what it wants to see. You see my thinking as incorrect, but it's ultimately your prerogative.

Till next time.Have a great day sir.

Sent back with love, my dear. It's not "sir" by the way, thank you.

DeepSightZ:
Believe me, I appreciate the quality of your responses. Its been ages since I have had a mind such as yours to interact with here. I am generally left with the only regular gifted one, LordReed these days. Back in the day there was a large host of fantastic minds on this board, scientists, philosophers, theorists, thinkers, even the religious folk were of a different calibre, very very scholarly in their approach. I will never forget a chap called Viaro, and others like Davidylan, Noetic. There were fabulous atheists of vast mind, such as KAG and the_homer. Now, the link I kept trying to post which got me repeatedly banned was a thread between me and the_homer concerning time. I will not try to post it again, but let me screenshot something that can lead you there, as the points made there on the nature of time are critical to what we discussed. (To find it, please google the key words in the title and add "Deepsight Nairaland" and you should arrive there. Its a short thread, so please try to read it all. But look out particularly for a post by a magnificent poster called justcool at 12:14 am on January 5 2011 on the first page of the thread).

I have changed my mind. Perhaps the conversation is worth a try. I will make sometime during the day to proceed.

Awwwn, that's kinda sweet. The feeling is mutual, mate. Your articulate expressions, depth and insight (could be why you're aptly named DeepSight ) on topics like these easily stands out, from the usual cacophonous ramblings I've grown accustomed to on these forums. We don't have to agree on everything, but it's nice to finally have the opportunity to engage in actual intellectually stimulating discourse on this site.

tctrills:
You are now repeating yourself and going around in circles. I am sure we will have other discussions.

It's the only thing I can do, when my opponent insists on circular arguments, like a dog chasing its own tail.

For you to say that because the 9/11 case was policy and the one against Catholics was not, hence there was no bias against Catholics shows how despite you are getting.

Correlation doesn't equals causation, and that's a common truism. That you're unaware of it, is no one's fault but yours.

Just so you know, it is much easier to hide bias when it isn't policy and that's why it took someone from the inside to leak the whole thing.

...because the most effective way to conceal institutional bias is to go ahead and write it down, then distribute it in memos, hmmm?

So if a racist cop beats up a black kid, I guess you will say that it isn't racism since it's not police policy even if the police chief does nothing about it until it leaks to the public.

We're now comparing a corrected memo to unpunished police brutality? Are you, by any chance, planning to participate in the 2028 Olympic triple jump, lol?

That argument is weak and pathetic even for your standard.

Your own standards must be fascinating, I assume. Do they happen to include a section on professional projection, hmmm?

I noticed that you keep repeating and have not added any new points to the discussion.

What will it profit me to add any new points when you're still struggling with the simple concept of "different things are different", lmao?

I suggest we postpone until another topic connects us again.

Taking your ball and going home then? It's just as well, seeing as you haven't managed to score any goals, thus far.

What say you?

I say your timing is impeccable, especially given that you're quickly running out of false analogy ammos. I do hope our next encounter finds you better acquainted with the concept of nuance.

DeepSightZ,

In my attempt to share a new finding, I too, fell victim to the merciless NL bots, who saw fit to hide my post and banish me from the religion section, for words deemed too scintillating, too provocative, too downright heretical for the delicate sensibilities of these touchy feely bots, lmao. I kid though.

Nay, I stumbled upon some fascinating new information concerning Einstein's infamous "spooky action at a distance" quote. Below are screenshots to my prior post that was hidden.

tctrills:
Let's summarize everything you are saying and see how much sense it makes.

Forgive me as I laugh at this statement, because I believe you've already attempted, not once, not twice, but thrice, to distill my position into a coherent mess, and each time, your words have ended up in a jumbled heap, like a laundry basket. I'm starting to think that the greater illness here, lies not in my argument, but in your inability to grasp it.

You believe you believe that as long as a wrong action is corrected, it doesn't qualify as bias. By your argument, slavery of blacks was not bias. It was corrected.

Smh, there you go again, cross-eyed, misrepresenting a clearly written position. If I see someone making a biased statement and I immediately retract it after realizing that error, that's a large row of planets away, from someone who maintains and defends racist views for years, or an institution that systematically enforces discriminatory policies. The scale, duration, intent, and institutional entrenchment matter enormously when analyzing bias, but you don't wish to hear this. Your brain simply can't grasp the concept of nuance, lmao.

Whenever your argument is extended to any other event, it stops making sense. It's a very shallow argument.

Failure to distinguish a rescinded memo, from centuries of institutionalized oppression suggests to me that you're the one, doing the shallow diving here, into the kiddie pool of false equivalences. What's the point of summarizing what I say, when you're fully committed to rhetorical jijutsus, and context-free analysis, hmmm? At this point, mate, just hang your coat.

The fact that you are scare to compare this to any event I mentioned shows that your argument can't stand the test if time. It is very weak.

All you've being doing here can be likened to stubbing your toe on the kitchen stool, and crying that it is exactly the same as being hit by a meteorite, because they both involve impact. I'm not obligated to entertain such ridiculous equivocations.

Again you have clearly changed your thoughts on institutional response. I am happy I was able to correct you Abit. Please go back and read your first thoughts on institutional response. It was very funny.

I've maintained throughout my submissions, that institutional response must be evaluated within its proper context, but no matter how times it is pointed out to you, alas, it must elude you like water through a sieve. My position never changed; you're just not poised enough to understand how complex the topic really is, as opposed to the simplified strawman you've been so enthusiastically tilting at. Your amusement is expected though, when you're accustomed to seeing everything in black and white, red becomes so fascinating, lol.

The FBI'S Post 9/11 actions where corrected does that not qualify as bias? If it does, point out how it is different from this case. That would be an intelligent response from you.

Match:

> Institutional bias crystallized into policy, defended at every level, and maintained despite years of protest.

vs.

> An overreach that the institution's own safeguards caught out and corrected immediately.

If you still struggle to see the difference, then perhaps remedial classes are in order, lmao.

You say I am guilty of False equivocation and the major difference you were able to spot out is that one took a longer time than the other. By your measure, everything is false equivocation. No two events are exactly the same or take the exact time. So that's not a serious argument.

Let's go further into the distinctions here:

So, the post-9/11 surveillance was:
1> Deliberately planned and implemented as policy.
2> Defended and maintained despite clear evidence of bias.
3> Resisted change at multiple institutional levels.

The FBI memo was:
1> Promptly corrected when identified.
2> Acknowledged as inappropriate by the FBI leadership itself.
3> Not defended as policy.

QED

Now let's look at the similarities.
Specific religious groups were wrongly targeted for investigation and were spied upon. The 2 cases are extremely similar coming from an organization with such history.

Scale and context, buddy. Scale and context. Do you even remember how this investigation started, hmmm?

Again you have a slim point when you say wiretapping was involved in the Muslim case. But I guess you don't know that wiretapping is only a form of spying. Spies were planted in the Catholic case also.

By this logic, a security camera at a bank and the NSA's satellite network must basically be the same thing, lol.

Another huge difference you spotted was that just one memo was all it took to enforce the Catholic targeting. You did not state how many memos were needed in the post 9/11 case. I guess you think that the more the memos the more serious the case. You are only being childish with your argument.

Not that I'm surprised that you'll miss it, as you can't tell your left from your right anyways, but the quantity of memos was never the point. It's the institutional entrenchment and systemic nature of the policy that matters.

Let's get a bit serious and point out the similarities.
In both cases, groups were targeted because of religion. That called bias.
In both cases spying was involved. And it was hidden from the public until it was leaked.

Is it your argument that the presence of similar elements, translates to two separate situations being equivalent? Do you realize how thick and shallow this assertion truly is?

It was you who proved that institutional response is not a valid point because it is only used when the response aligns with your emotions. So yes, it's not a valid argument. It's a nonsense argument.

Is there proof of this nonsense claim, or is this just another one of your cheap, unnecessary lies?

Clearly you don't understand what evidence is. I never gave you my opinion, I gave you the facts as they are.

...he declares, by his own opinions, in a case of exquisite irony, lol, smh.

I know that if not for this argument, you will agree that when people are targeted for their religion it is bias. But we are arguing, so you can never agree.

So you've graduated from mind reading to alternate reality construction. Incredible. Your talents are truly expanding .

To you, a corrected mistake can no longer be labeled as bias. We both know that you are only inventing things for the sake of argument. If not, by your definition, black slavery was not bias, it was corrected.

...and here we go again with the trite and unfounded slavery comparison. It's starting to resemble the argumentative equivalent of you pulling the fire alarm because you can't make a convincing argument, lol.

Less I forget, you said something about the taste of defeat. I really hope you were not insinuating that you won the argument because that would be a very unwise thing to say.
Declaring yourself victorious without an umpire is very dumb. Imagine students in charge of grading their exams, no one would ever fail. Or imagine a professional football game without a ref.
I cannot declare victory because I have not been able to pull you over to my side. To me, that's the purpose of these public discussions. I don't see the point in killing a goat and declaring victory when you are still where I met you. You still believe that targeting a particular religion in not bias.

Mate, you've just spent several paragraphs, over the last two days, declaring your own understanding to be superior. Your self-awareness here is approaching absolute zero.

tctrills:
Do you really know anything about the case? Let's be sincere you really knew nothing about this case until I brought it up.

I'm pretty sure I already admitted to this earlier, and I just recently delved into the case to be more versed in it, following your first mention. That being said, it's utterly irrelevant when or how I learned about the case, so I think it's safe to say that you're just trying to poison the well with ad hominems, and discredit my contributions, based on a trivial factor. What matters here, is the substance of my arguments, and the logic behind them. You'd do well to focus on those instead, thank you very much.

The FBI leadership did nothing about the case until its documents leaked to the public. Please educate yourself better on the case.

So? Taking action after the documents were leaked doesn't necessarily diminish their response at all.

Before the leak, the FBI didn’t take visible action to address concerns. It was only after public backlash that the FBI retracted the memo, with Director Christopher Wray stating it was against agency policy and should never have been issued.

It's not entirely out of place though, for internal investigations and corrections to occur without much fanfare, only to become public when a controversy erupts. The key takeaway here is that the FBI did acknowledge the mistake, took corrective action, and subsequently reaffirmed their commitment to uphold agency policies.

That's not how you want the FBI to be run. You don't want your FBI to react to bias only after pubic outcry.

In light of the corrections made, I want to know, what other specific standards or protocols do you think the FBI failed to meet here, hmmm?

Secondly, the evil officers involved were not sacked.

How certain are you about this though? It's very possible that the officers faced internal consequences. Are you familiar with the FBI's policies on dealing with agents' mis-steps in the organization? What are you really expecting here? You want them to be drawn and quartered, or executed publicly by firing squad, lol?

Now your institutional response argument makes less Sense the more your make it.

If you're unable to understand the simple, straightforward sequence of events that led me to the conclusion that the FBI demonstrated institutional accountability, I'm happy to explain it over and over again for you, if that's your wish.

Remember, you said you only believe in institutional response.
Trump's executive orders all fall under institutional response. How come you are not in support.

I've consistently argued thus far, that institutions should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of who's sitting in the White House, and/or regardless of which administration in power. It's quite sad that you're struggling to distinguish between simple criticism of a specific policy and support for accountability in general. It's not too late for you, to humble yourself, and revisit the basics of logical reasoning.

You pick and choose which institutional response to agree with.
In essence, you have zero regards for institutional response unless it aligns with your beliefs.

I have applied a consistent standard of accountability across the board, so your comment here is just sour grapes.

That means your entire argument is really based on nothing except you don't like Trump's executive order.
Your support of the FBI is base on those same emotions.

More infantile ad hominems, considering that I've taken the pains to provide detailed explanations and evidence to support my position in this discussion, while you sit on your arse, and fabricate lies and strawmen, putting words into my mouth, to misrepresent my position.

Do you know why the FBI director was saddened by the actions of his boys?
It is because their actions clearly showed bias.

So the director being saddened now means that the entire agency is biased? Can you even listen to yourself, smh?

They investigated a people because of their beliefs and branded them as radical. Oga, that's the definition of bias.

No, that's just you demonstrating your reductionist logic. All law enforcement agencies have a duty to investigate potential threats, regardless of what the individual's beliefs may be. As far as this case is concerned, the FBI's only mistake was broadening the scope of their investigation too widely.

If the evidence is not clear enough for you then nothing can.

The eye sees what it wants to see. Your persecution complex will always force you, to seek out what you perceive to be injustice, to your faith.

If you investigate me because of my religion, how is that not bias.

In the context of a legitimate investigation into potential extremist activities, by individuals who identify with said religion, it is not bias.

Again, I disagree with you. A single corrected error could be enough to show bias. Especially if it was not corrected until public outcry and hearings.

Again, what really matters here, is how they those mistakes are addressed and taken care of.

The FBI corrected it's single bias against japanese Americans in WW2. Would your u erase history because it was just one error?

This is a non-sequitur. The actions of the FBI against Japanese Americans during World War III, were targeted specifically at individuals of Japanese ancestry, irrespective of their citizenship or loyalty. Contrast this with the FBI's memo being reportedly part of a broader investigation into extremist activities of elements within the faith, rather than a targeted campaign against all Catholics.

The after 9/11 Muslim bias was just one error and it has been corrected so let's delete history and claim it never happened.

9/11 Muslim bias, came with its own unique context and circumstances, so it's highly disingenuous of you to imply that the FBI's response to these situations is identical.

Learn to apply your theories all through. If it doesn't make sense in one case then discard it.

Theories and principles can, and have often been, nuanced and context-dependent, and it's perfectly valid to apply them in the proper way, that takes into account the very specific circumstances that influence them.

Lastly, you call my argument shallow because you can't provide answers. Anyone can call the other persons argument shallow. It doesn't mean anything if you can't provide answers to simple questions.

...except all I have been doing in this discussion, is explain my position with facts and logic, while correcting the abundance of flaws, fallacies and misunderstanding in yours.

Oga, are you ok with the institutional response of the FBI in the case of the 9/11 Muslims or in the banana republic era?

I have argued, and I still maintain, that institutions should be held accountable for their actions, and that includes acknowledging and learning from past mistakes, so these are loaded questions.

If no, then your institutional response argument in nonsense but if yes then I can say your argument is coming from an honest please.

If you seriously think that acknowledging the flawed nature of the FBI's response in the cases you've mentioned, undermines my argument about the importance of institutional accountability, then I'm not sure you even understand what this discussion is about.

I will accept that you take institutional response very serious and I will try to educate you on the dangers of accepting the institutional response.

I'm well aware of the potential pitfalls of blindly accepting institutional responses, actually. Doesn't mean we should reject them altogether, as that would just be a misguided approach, considering that they are necessary for ensuring that power is held accountable, and that mistakes are corrected.

tctrills:
This idea that you are on the side of institutional response is just a cover. If the institutional response of the FBI is no longer in line with your argument, will you still accept it.

It is a documented fact that the previous FBI leadership already acknowledged the error, and corrected it, irregardless of future leadership changes, so you're still fighting ghosts my dear.

We now have a new FBI director with a very different opinion and institutional response from the formal so are you still on the side of institutional response or was it only a pretense to protect your argument?

Just because there's a new nominee for the office of FBI director, who has potentially different views, doesn't retroactively validate or invalidate any previous actions. Each institutional response is evaluated independently based on its own alignment with the constitutional principles and law enforcement standards that have been established. So what are you on about, hmmm?

It's funny that you decide that your opinion is evidence.
All through the discussion, you have only depended on your opinion.

You may keep telling yourself that, until you're purple in the face, but the reality here is that in this discussion, I have cited documented actions, such as the creation of the memo review, it's rescission, official statements from the director etc etc, while you're here inferring institutional bias from a simple administrative error. Methodology: that's the key distinction in the way we have both approached the evidence.

Was the FBI bias in it's action against catholics? Yes it was. And the evidence say so.
Let me lay the evidence below. You tell me if it is opinion or clear evidence.

You're asking the wrong questions, I'm afraid. The question of whether the FBI made a mistake is completely irrelevant, as they clearly did and have admitted it. The question here, is whether that mistake constitutes evidence of systematic bias. A single corrected error doesn't offer enough gas to support that broader claim, just as a single rainy day does not necessarily prove a climate pattern.

1. The FBI’s leaked Richmond memo labeled "radical-traditionalist Catholics" (RTCs) as potential extremists, suggesting they could be monitored for domestic terrorism. This singled out a specific religious group based on their beliefs rather than actual threats.

...and for the umpteenth time, this is exactly the reason for which it was rescinded. You're conflating a withdrawn analytical framework, with active surveillance.

2. Reports indicated that the FBI considered using informants or sources within Catholic churches to monitor members, a tactic that echoes historical abuses against religious minorities and implies unwarranted suspicion.

Going undercover is arguably the primary investigative method of the FBI, lol. They use it in investigations across all demographics, from Wall Street, all the way to Walmart parking lots, so this is a puerile charge. Are we to clutch our pearls and cry persecution every single time law enforcement agencies use investigative methods that are well established? Perhaps you'd prefer them to send a formal RSVP before conducting surveillance, hmmm? "Dear Potential Suspects, We cordially request your attendance at your own investigation...", lmao.

3. While many extremist groups exist across various religious and ideological backgrounds, the FBI’s disproportionate focus on Catholics raises questions about why similar scrutiny wasn't applied to comparable groups with a history of violence or radicalization.

The absurdity of this position rather speaks for itself, since the FBI concentrates mainly on specific leads and threats, and not demographic quotas. It's almost like you ignored the true origin of how this investigation started in the first place, from an extremist member of a subgroup with bizarre ideologies, who relate strongly to the Catholic faith. Based on the circumstances and nature of the case, the FBI needed to focus their investigation on Catholic extremists/radicals. But I'm guessing based on your logic, they should have gone ahead to find some Buddhist rascals to balance the books, even though the case had literally nothing to do with Buddhists or Buddhism.

4. After public backlash, the FBI distanced itself from the Richmond memo, with officials acknowledging that it did not meet investigative standards. This suggests an initial willingness to act on anti-Catholic bias until it was publicly exposed.

So essentially, this is your argument: When an institution makes a mistake and corrects it, this somehow constitutes proof of their initial malicious intent. Now, read that last sentence over and over again, and if it still makes any sense to you, please walk me through the logic behind it. Maybe you can even break it down using syllogisms, because right now, and truly no offense intended, I think this is the most braindead, disingenuous, absolutely retardéd argument I've seen anyone make this year, with a straight face, no less.

Now I have given you clear evidence and not opinion.

Then perhaps, you have mixed up the definitions of those two words "evidence" and "opinion", in your head, because what you've provided here is simply your own interpretation of the case, and your interpretations don't magically transmute from subjective analysis into objective fact, by simply calling them "clear evidence".

Lastly, institutional response always depends on who is in charge of the institution. If you only accept certain institutional response, it's dishonest to use institutional response as your argument.

Are you suggesting that just because institutional responses vary based on leadership, we should therefore, not consider institutional responses as valid arguments unless of course, presumably, they happen to align with your preferred narrative?

Look for a better reason.

The reasons have long been provided. You just pretend not to see them, because you don't like the taste of defeat, lol.

Let me ask you, was the FBI"s institutional response biased to Muslims after 9/11?
Do we have evidence that it was biased?

False equivocation. This is yet another instance of you loading up bullets to shoot yourself in your own foot with, just like you did when you brought up JWs in the army discourse, lmao. If you were the least bit aware, of the vast difference in scale, scope, duration, and institutional entrenchment between those two situations, you wouldn't even think of comparing them. Now look at you here, attempting to draw a spurious parallel between a case of years-long systematic targeting, which included warrantless wiretapping, religious and ethnic profiling, and even the creation of entire programs specifically aimed at targeting Muslim communities, and comparing it to a single memo that was promptly rescinded, the moment its overreach was identified. Abi did you forget, that the targeting of Muslims continued, even in spite of mounting evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of their approach?

I mean, the singular fact that we can readily acknowledge and criticize the FBI's post-9/11 overreach, while also recognizing their swift correction of the Catholic memo, curiously enough, serves to demonstrate a proper example, of institutional evolution and learning which is precisely the opposite of what you've been trying to prove here, lmao.

I really want to see you support the FBI 9/11 response since you must always be on the side of the instructions.

I can recognize when an institution makes a mistake, and promptly corrects it, but how this translates to me blindly supporting everything it has ever done, is a puzzle you have to solve for me by yourself, lol. Also, this rather desperate attempt from you to try and pigeonhole me with a particular viewpoint, reveals more about your binary thinking, than my position.

We can also discuss the CIA's actions in the so called Banana republics since you must always take side with institutional response?

The fact that you felt the need to reach out for such dramatically disparate comparisons, from 9/11 surveillance to banana republics, is a very spectacular demonstration of how shallow your original argument was. I've never seen someone reach so much, without actually getting anywhere, lmao.

tctrills:
Let me rely to one one of your points. You rely not on evidence, but on a narrative.

...and you're relying on a primary misunderstanding of the difference between evidence and opinion.

The same evidence was provided to us but you decided to run along with the narrative that suites your argument.

...coming from someone with a persecution complex so elaborate, it deserves its own Netflix series.

Was the action of the FBI wrong? Yes. Was it bias? Yes it most certainly was.

The structure of your assessment here is amusing: "Was it wrong? Yes. Was it bias? Yes because I say so". A true testament to the non-existence of your logical rigor.

But you chose to be defender in chief of the FBI nothing more. You did not depend on evidence or institutional response.

Defending the concept of institutional accountability isn't quite the same as defending the FBI itself, but then again, you've already shown repeatedly, that nuance isn't exactly your strongest suit.

A little bit more on institutional response. The instruction of the presidency has responded with an executive order and you are clearly not depending on it. You choose your institutions.

If you seriously think executive orders are famously permanent, and are unassailable pieces of governance, as opposed to basic political tools that change with each coming administration, then I can only smh, and laugh at your naive presumptions, lol.

So let's be honest about one thing, you only depend on your emotions and your argument.

The irony here is thick enough, to spread on toast, given that your entire case, rests firmly on your creative interpretation of the facts.

DeepSightZ:
Dear The Devils Bride,

You may recall that at the onset, I told you that it would be crucial that you accept fundamental principles of causality, and that deploying Quantum Physics to deny same would render the discussion impossible.

...and I pointedly rejected this proposal, because as far as this universe is concerned, nothing is ever carved in stone. Scientific progress is made, by the exact process of questioning whatever we think, or consider to be "fundamental principle/s", and not by putting them on a pedestal constantly, like sacred cows that must be immune to all forms of scrutiny.

For this reason, I am unable to proceed with this conversation. In saying so, I must point out that while aspects of Quantum Physics / Mechanics are indeed proven and already useful in science as you point out, there is as yet no concrete proof of those theoretical aspects of it which speak to the breakdown of the laws of physics at any "place" or "time" close to the origin of the universe. This is theory and speculation only and is by no means proven. If I am wrong, and there is concrete proof of this, please by all means draw same to my attention.

Absolutely. It's true that much of QM remains in the realm of speculation, but then again, we could say the exact same for your entire position on causality, as we begin to approach cosmic scales/levels. QM, as speculative as you may think it is, at least has mathematics and experimental evidence firmly on its side, not philosophical conjecture.

So for clarity, I say - that those aspects of quantum physics which pertain to this existential discussion - and which specfically abrogate the known principles of causality - are unproven.

I promise, not trying to poke for a dust-up here, but it just seems convenient to me, that the aspects which particularly challenge your worldview, are the ones you have labeled as "unproven" .

(Let me briefly cite a case in point: many people have tried to use virtual particles in a quantum vacuum as evidence that things may "pop" out of "nothingness" uncaused. This is wrong because there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere, and those so called quantum vacuums contain low gaseous pressure. Dont take my word for it, investigate.)

The point was never about whether perfect vacuums exist though (they don't, lol), but that QM exposes a fundamental indeterminacy in nature that holds the feet, of our classical notions of causality, to the fire.

I thus cannot proceed with the discussion.

Fair enough, if you feel that way.

I will only add that I also do not buy your explanation on "triggers" and most importantly, it is absolutely impossible for anything to expand if there isnt pre-existing space into which it expands. On this point, I will not even entertain any cavil whatsoever, it is an iron cast point of both logic and commonsense and no voodoo can take it away.

The space itself can expand, you know. But, you do you.

There are many other fine points I would have loved to discuss in your write up, but as we do in law - when a matter is disposed off by a supervening point or principle, we do not waste time with other details. Thus, on the ground that you insist on unproven quantum principles to denounce causality, I have to drop the subject.

...except we're in a quantum court here, where even the precedents and principles themselves, are on trial, lmao.

It has, nonetheless, been a pleasure.

A pleasure, indeed. In the spirit of your legal metaphors, I'll conclude my riposte with this: The universe is not obligated to make any sense to you, and neither is it even obligated to make any sense to me, or anyone else. The joy of learning, comes from the pursuit of understanding, even of those things that cast doubts on our rudimentary assumptions of reality.

tctrills:
Let me summarize

Hopefully, your summary won't miss the point as well.

You see the FBI"s action as a simple misjudgement and I see it as bias and feel it should be punished.

So it seems, however, there is a compelling difference: I rely on evidence and institutional response; you rely on persecution fantasies.

You believe that Chaplind who volunteer and sign up must go against the dictates of their religion while I believe that religious beliefs must be protected even in the army.

Smh, I can still detect some subtle misunderstanding with this summary, but I'd rather not keep flogging the poor, dead horse.

I understand why someone with you point of view sees nothing wrong in forcing people to go against their religion just because they are volunteers but I hope you also understand why I believe in the protection of religious standards even in the army.

I understand your position perfectly. Doesn't make it any less incorrect.

Like must human beings faced with the same facts, you and I are persuaded differently.

Again, so it seems.

You are wrong but I perfectly respect your opinion.

Like I told you before, I appreciate the attempt at civility. It's a refreshing experience in this website filled with trolls, bigots, and overly sentimental folks.

jaephoenix:
MadMax is well known for pulling out definitions from his ever-resourceful ass, and most times they are own goals.
Take for instance this his problem with all-powerful, almighty and omnipotent. Despite data showing the words mean exactly the same, despite many folks including myself explaining to him the words mean the same, he still insists otherwise. Now he's saying all-powerful means his god can do evil. Now here is the own-goal he scored: he forgot that Yhwh himself said he is evil.
In the New World Translation of the Bible(I intentionally used NWT cos its used by JW and they don't give a fvck about any other translation and if I used any other translation apart from NWT, MadMax would ignore it), Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, Jehovah, am doing all these things. Other translations like King James Bible said
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Despite NWT trying to damage-limit the verse, the evil in the verse still shines through. Which good god would create darkness and calamity, and for what reason? Also in Samuel, Yhwh sent evil spirits to torment Saul, infact Yhwh himself is a whole ass villain in the Bible.
So MadMax, yes, Yhwh is a bad boy too.

Omo, I started having a migraine reading his posts. He just waffles on, repeating the same boring rhetoric over and over again, about "true believers". DeepSightZ even put hand for the guy matter. Abeg, let's forget the dodo. He simply cannot be helped, smh, lol.

jaephoenix:
Are you by chance JessicaRabbit? You two have the same vibes: smart and witty, tackling these dumb theists for fun

.

Apologies for the late response. Yesterday (...and seemingly the coming week) was an avalanche of important activities, that I simply couldn't cast aside. Anyways, let's jump right back into the action...

DeepSightZ:
Thank you my friend. The reason I have taken this "pre-emptive" strike against quantum physics is simple: much of it remains in the realm of speculation and conjecture still - and even that which is certain about it is mired in deep uncertainty - surely you know this. Einstein described it as "spooky action at a distance" which was a way of indicating that it was something that still appeared to be in the realm of magic and phantoms.

I'm afraid your invocation of Einstein's "spooky action" quote, curiously enough, demonstrates the exact opposite of what you might have intended here. Einstein used that phrase, I believe, precisely because the concept of quantum entanglement appeared to outrightly violate his classical intuitions and ideas, about causality and locality, and guess what? Quantum mechanics came out on top in that particular debate, lol. So Einstein got it wrong, and the "spooky action" he deemed to be so disturbing, has now been established as a thoroughly demonstrated, and repeatable phenomenon, and is literally the basis for building quantum computers today. So I don't know if citing Einstein's skepticism here accomplishes much, as it is an argument that history has pretty much settled already, and not in your favor.

This is not to say that there isnt value there, it is simply to say that the science of quantum physics is still at such an elementary and rudimentary stage as yet , such that no one can claim to understand it. It will therefore be very shaky grounds on which to base concrete arguments on existential issues - especially when we are dealing with something so intrinsic to our reality as causality.

I'll have you know that QM is arguably one of, if not THE most precisely tested theory, throughout the history of science. In fact, it is extraordinarily precise science. Certain quantum effects can be predicted to an accuracy equivalent to taking measurements of the width of North America, to within the width of a human's hair. I don't see how you can classify this as rudimentary, or "shaky grounds", simply because it challenges our intuitive notions about what causality is, and what it entails. If anything, it's perfect evidence of the fact that we have much more to learn, about the subject of causality. I think it's much more likely, that our ape-evolved knowledge or conceptions about QM, is incomplete, than for it to be wrong. Don't forget, it is said to be the most verified theory in physics.

No one, for example, will rely on quantum physics in our daily life to avoid the direct consequences of their actions and the dictates of causality as we know them. It is easy enough to make a vague statement such as "towards or close to the beginning of the universe, the laws of physics as we know them break down" and thereby seek to magically invoke quantum physics to fill the gap.

Smartphones, GPS, lasers etc etc easily crumble your assertion here, because QM plays a major role in how they all function, so I'm not sure I understand where this bizarre narrative came from. The transistors residing within your computer device/s, the LED screens we're both probably staring at, right now, are manifested via the direct application of QM principles. There's quite a number of misapprehensions, you seem to be having about the QM though, misconstruing it as some form of esoteric thought experiment, when it is in fact, the very foundation today for a lot of our modern tech gadgets and thingamajigs, lol. So I'm sorry, but I can't, and won't relate to your outright dismissal of QM, on this topic.

I humbly submit that this is no better than the "God of the gaps" which atheists often accuse religionists of. Where you dont understand something, you invoke the fairy of quantum physics as an escape. That will not do please.

Take a good squint around the corner, and you might observe, that we heckle religionists and apologists for the "God of the gaps" sleight of hand, precisely because it needlessly inserts an unfalsifiable, supernatural explanation, where natural reasons might be lacking. Not so with QM! In fact, it's quite absurd that you would look at a rigorously tested scientific framework like QM, which has immense predictive power, and is also mathematically consistent, and attempt to pigeonhole it in the same category as nebulous concepts like divine intervention.

As I said yesterday, I find the bold most worrisome, and statements such as that, however you may try to excuse them, are the fastest way to chase me away from a conversation.

While it's entirely your prerogative, to feel that way, I frankly don't see the need for you to clutch pearls over my statement. If you perceive that this debate will lead nowhere, then I won't begrudge you for abandoning it. I only just tried using an example from everyday living, based on thermodynamic principles, to illustrate what I think (and know) is a poignant, fundamental point about causation.

I saw that you tried to make a distinction between "nothing" and no triggers" the other day and to be honest that only wearied me more. Because fundamentally, I am certain you know the point is that there is a cause, whatever you may describe it as - a drive towards equilibrium, the laws of thermodynamics, whatever. There is a cause and that is the point. And once there is a cause it is patently absurd to say there is no "trigger."

Well, you've already made it clear, how problematic this segment of our correspondence is to you, and now, I think I can see why. Before I demonstrate how your lack of understanding factors into this segment, I'll just point out to you, firstly, that you have produced a perfect example of what philosophers term the motte-and-bailey fallacy. How, you say? When your original position is challenged and/or questioned [the bailey: traditional causation], you then retreat, to a definition that is almost needlessly broad [the motte: "any preceding state of affairs"], except this broader definition is no longer sufficient to carry out the philosophical assignment, you set out to do in the first place.

If you can't see the problem yet, I'll double down, and this is where QM really lays the smackdown. In the case of quantum tunneling, or virtual particles popping in and out of existence, or in the case of radioactive decay, can we actually decipher the "preceding state of affairs" that should serve as the trigger, hmmm? How about the mere existence of probability fields, or quantum vacuum itself? If every single thing, that precedes any given event must count as the "trigger" for said event, then we're just diluting the concept of causation to the point of sheer meaninglessness. As with what I tried to demonstrate with my coffee example, there exists many physical processes which do not require discrete triggers in any meaningful sense, but are just manifestations of the primary properties of reality itself. If you wish to expand your definition, in order to accomodate even those properties as "triggers", you're inadvertently defining causation as reality existing and operating, in accordance with its very own nature, and once we arrive at this juncture, we then have to ponder on what explanatory power this peculiar concept of triggers, actually has.

It occurred to me though, that perhaps by "trigger" you think I mean the agency of a person. If that is the case, please perish the thought. I am not saying that. And this goes for Lord Reed as well, for he said he doubts "it is the cause I am reaching for" - if either of you think that by "trigger" I refer to the agency of a person - kindly know that I do not. A trigger is simply a predeceing cause, an event or even state of affairs that causes something to happen.

I believe my explanation, just right above, will also suffice here.

This may be a good juncture in which to clarify that I dont know if the God that I am saying necessarily exists is personal, has self awareness or identity. I only know that it is something that necessarily and logically must exist for any other thing to exist.

Okay. But why call it "God" at all? Is it really necessary? What's wrong with just calling it "reality" or "the universe", and dropping the theological baggage altogether?

In philosophy, it is called a neccessary thing, as oppposed to a contingent thing. In philosophy, necessary things necessarily exist. I have said already that for me, infinite space and eternal time are necessary things. And therefore components of God.

At the very best, this is just philosophical sleight-of-hand. If I wake up one morning, and choose to define my coffee mug as "that thing which necessarily contains my morning coffee" it doesn't follow that my mug is now imbued with any metaphysical properties, that make it stand out from other mugs. So far, your argument sounds like an attempt to bootstrap God into existence by definition, as opposed to actually demonstrating his existence.

If the universe is itself space and time and everything else, into what is it expanding?
Dwell carefully on this question because it is at the very centre of much that is important in this discussion.

There isn't really much to dwell on here, I'm sorry, as the question is pretty much DOA [Dead On Arrival]. I'll try to explain. You see, you've already fallen into the common trap of thinking about our universe in terrestrial terms that are familiar to us, and it tacitly betrays the exact same anthropocentric spatial intuitions that led the ancient medieval philosophers to commit category errors, by asking questions like "what's north of the North Pole?" or "what happened before time began?. But lest I veer too far from the conversation, the universe is definitely not like a balloon inflating into the surrounding air, even though this particular analogy has often been used regularly (rather unfortunately, If I might add) in pop-science explanations. What you're calling "expansion" is actually nothing but the scale factor of space itself, continuously increasing. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this properly, but what this means, is that the distances existing between gravitationally unbound objects, are growing larger, however, they're not actually moving "through" anything, neither are they moving "into" anywhere. The only thing changing here, is the metric itself.

Then again, we might as well rename cosmic expansion to "metric scaling" or "spatial dilation", so that we may avoid tripping over such linguistic pitfalls, but alas, we find ourselves stuck with the ancient historical terminology and all of its inaccurate, misleading baggage. Sometimes, our own language itself can become the enemy of proper understanding, like being forced to elucidate on QM via classical physics analogies, lmao.

Current best science does say that the universe had a beginning, that it expanded from the point of a singularity and that is why an age is ascribed to the universe.

True, but you can't actually take current cosmological models in science, and describe them as absolute ontological truth. All current physical models break down catastrophically, at the singularity, which is a mathematical asymptote, where ALL of our predictive equations are rendered meaningless, so at best we can call it the limit of our current epistemological resources. Models like the BBT [Big Bang], only describe an extraordinary expansion, rather than a starting point, in the metaphysical sense that you've implied.

I have already explained in my intro why I cannot accept the escape of "quantum" physics or mechanics.
It explains and says nothing and is nothing but an escape.

Again, your prerogative. As well-evidenced as it is, QM doesn't exactly need a stamp of approval from anyone here. Causality is not a rigid, deterministic motion of objects colliding together, and it's a proven fact.

By the way, you may believe that this universe is all that exists, but I certainly do not. And if you are to scale this hurdle you have to first tell me what the universe is expanding into.

Asked and answered. The universe doesn't necessarily require an "outside" any more than a sphere necessarily requires a space beyond of its surface.

Please dont say "nothingness" as that will take us too far out too sea, given that nonthingness, by definition, does not exist.

No can do, sire. No linguistic barricade exists, that can protect this strange theological edifice you've built, from collapsing under the weight, of its own definitional contradictions. QM already scoffs at any attempts, to stifle ontological possibility/ies, with definitional razor wires, lol.

There is nothing obsfucatory about the word "transcendental," it simply means that which transcends or is beyond something else.

No clarifications have been made yet, I'm afraid. The moment you decide to invoke something that supposedly exists, beyond our observable universe, and without any empirical evidence to support, then you're just relocating the mystery and pretending that you've explained or solved it. It's intellectual three-card monte.

I dont expect you to just agree with me or even follow what I am trying to say. Remember I told you I have been at this for 16 years on this board with no success in terms of getting any skeptic to see what I am propounding so know that its really not every point that can be elucidated to conclusion. Somethings which are simple and obvious to me may be invisible to you and vice versa and I have learnt that quite often one has to leave it at that.

...and that's fine. I strongly disagree with your findings, obviously, but I respect the intellectual journey you've embarked on, that led you to your current perspective.

Are you a strict materialist? Do you believe that only physical things exist and non-physical things do not exist?

No, I'm not a "strict materialist", especially not in the same vein of a religious devotee who clings tenaciously to dogma. I do not "believe" things exist, but provisionally accept only those claims that can be demonstrated via methodologies which are rigorous and reproducible. Non-physical entities, as far as I know, elude all scientific scrutiny, so I see no point, entertaining such concepts.

Infinity by definition cannot be numbered. And surely it must occur to you that if there were an infinite regress of causes, no event will ever occur and no universe will ever exist. Do I have to break this down? Please dont ask me, try look up the subject in philosophy.

There exists robust conceptual frameworks, within the field of mathematics, that paradoxically, are designed for the purpose of handling infinite sets. As a matter of fact, mathematicians routinely engage with multiple orders of infinity. For instance, Cantor's work on transfinite numbers, without going into too much detail, completely obliterates the idea that infinity implies not being able to understand anything. Assuming that just because a series is infinite, it necessarily follows that its' elements cannot progress, or be able to generate emergent phenomena, is a fallacious assumption, born from a fundamental misunderstanding of temporal dynamics, and modal logic.

Those attrributes are logically deduced. I hope you notice they do not include religious attributes such as ominiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, good, kind, loving, merciful, forgiving, just etc.

But you've only succeeded in constructing a linguistic scaffold of grandiose adjectives like "permanent", "transcendental" etc, which are at best, sophisticated dodges. I don't suppose logical deductions should involve wrapping unsubstantiated assertions in transparent philosophical lingerie.

On a lighter note, if our creator(s) have any personal attributes, I have often reflected that sadism must be one.

Twisted sadist/s, yes I agree.

I dont think you are familiar with the philosophical precepts of necessary and contingent things.

Then maybe you can enlighten me? Or at least provide a substantive epistemological grounding for your assertions of which objects are " necessary", and "contingent".

Time, for example is a necessary thing. So is space. Neither of these things can fail to exist. They are intrinsically basic to existence. They are the default state of reality.

...another notion technically debunked by QM. Plus, Hawking's work on singularities sheds a good amount of light, on how our classical understanding of space-time breaks down under very extreme conditions.