fayfreethinkers.com

I read an article on Psychology Today titled No, It’s Not the Neurotransmitters, which says, among other things:

The pharmaceutical industry has been exposed having been engaged in study suppression, falsification, strategic marketing, and financial incentives. Sales of antidepressants in 2011 was 11 billion dollars. Ben Goldacre is his illuminating Ted lecture, “What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe” addressed the issue of study suppression. A fifteen year review of antidepressant studies showed that 50% of the 76 studies were positive and 50% were negative. All of the positive studies were published and all but three of the negative studies were suppressed and not published. In 2004 approximately half of all studies that weren’t already suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry concluded that antidepressants are not significantly more effective than placebo alone. And two thirds of studies for children given antidepressants show the same.

I thought perhaps folks here had already been confronted with similar claims in the past and may have already done some fact checking. I'm curious if people here agree or disagree that:

A) Pharmaceutical companies "suppress" scientific studies, or significantly affect which studies are published...
B) The available evidence does not demonstrate the effectiveness of antidepressant medications...
C) Chemical imbalance is probably not the root cause of most cases of depression...
D) People with depression will generally be more likely to feel less depressed if they undergo forms of treatment other than taking antidepressants, (e.g. psychotherapy)...
E) Taking antidepressants ultimately makes depression worse for most people who take them, or has other negative side effects which end up making the patients feel worse than they otherwise would have.

(Please note that I do not intend to imply personal agreement with any of these claims, I simply wish to express them to solicit feedback on what others think their probable truth values are.)

I don't have enough experience with the issue to have a very informed opinion, but I don't have trouble believing A, and know there is some evidence for B. Not qualified for C-E.

I love your ending quote, "We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets." We can't just believe in the narrow examination process that scientism hands us. We have to fully weigh the validity of these concepts, completely outside of our emotional attachments. Otherwise we are just "[posing] as its prophets" by saying that our own understanding is better or the only way to look at things, and not just a different way, or even a similar way from a slightly different perspective.

Abandoning a complete devotion to how you perceive information will cause you to try to be a "prophet" for whatever you care about "doing" with that information, whether it is consciously or subconsciously intended doesn't matter. And this brings me to your first question.

A) It doesn't matter whether or not pharmaceutical companies do "suppress" scientific studies. It matters that they CAN. Ask yourself, does the result of the studies effect whether or not it is given the funding to continue? Absolutely it does. If finding "the cure" actually fixes the problem, that funding would obviously have to stop. If "treating" the problem is more financially effective than fixing it, and the funding is coming from a business that intends to profit (or "prophet") from this information, then they are certainly going to choose the path of a gradual treatment and shun any unintended results.

B) Again, "evidence" isn't something that can exist outside of a conscious being. We can't just create some system that is pretty good but we don't understand it and still believe in it. This is how religions were first created, by passing on a verbal phrase that contained all the important information. The memorized phrase was passed down by everyone, but only the "shamans" knew how that literal phrase could represent "useful information for life." But the priests and shamans started to enjoy the power differential that they had with this (occult) knowledge, so they increasingly kept it back. Until the point that every popular religion became just a dogmatic belief system instead of something that connects with reality. Just like all religions, this is what modern science has become. We believe in it before we understand fully some of the concepts governing its framework, just because it can show us some workable results. But we can never let it represent "evidence" outside our own personal knowledge of it, because true evidence only can happen within individuals, not organizations. Once they learn, trust, and try; or in other words, just believe in something enough to see whether it is completely valid on all levels, and not just the ones where we can demonstrate some use from it.

Looking at the entire dynamic of the pharmaceutical companies, to see what happens if they accomplish their goal, what happens if they fail, what is the most profitable outcome, what the energy available is to them, what path they can express it upon, and which points upon that path would create a noticeable change. It is just calculus (appropriately called derivatives), but you could also just look at it with "trial and error" to test the results. Whatever you call it, we have to go deeper with all forms of information, and not just accept the "surface" information that comes from industries or even popular science as an institution.

C) "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." This is a fantastic quote from Eastern traditions, and obviously we shouldn't feel "well" with all the problems in the world. That would be delusional and psychotic, yet it is where nearly everyone ends up....

It is just another attempt to "treat the symptom" and "ignore the cause," while the crap keeps piling up in our backyard. And now it is almost too big to bare looking at. But we have to overcome this escapism and start working on our self in order to see clearer the way that we must all learn to choose. (Morality, or knowing and respecting human rights.)

D) Scientism doesn't like to admit that everything happens for a reason (that's religion's job). They would rather believe that some events happen that don't mean anything, were completely random, and were the result of absolutely nothing. When scientism makes a claim about information, it has to ignore part of the results in order to make them conform to the over-arching theory it presents (like evolution as an explanation for human origin). The validity of their concepts shows how unworkable their theories are. Because they weren't willing to look at the WHOLE picture they are left with something less functional, and unconnected towards greater development.

Just like the limitation expressed in popular science, taking a drug that changes your thinking and reduces the very appropriate emotional distress you should be experiencing if you live in reality, is obviously NOT a good method towards fixing anything but a symptom. Like anything, if you want real change, you have to go deeper.

E) Emotions are just a reaction to the things we see. If we start blocking them out, we might stop reacting to things that we NEED to react to. The very things that are causing distress from our current human conditions. You can see the trend of this self perpetuating cycle where it creates the harm that it also treats.

@Dardedar, thank you for your reply. I'll have to do some research myself if/when I have the time.

I think what I've read in the past indicated that it depended on the person, for some people medication made a difference while talking to a therapist did not, for some vice versa, (and I realize there's more to it than those two options), but I don't remember where I read or heard that, so that doesn't do me much good.

(It seems like it may also have depended on how bad the case was, but I don't remember where I saw that either.)

@Joeknows, I'm glad you like my signature, and thank you. I like the quote too.

Thank you for your responses to my questions as well. I'm not sure what you would propose though. For the sake of those who deal with depression, dysphoria, bipolar disorder, chronic stress/anxiety, etc. I'd like to figure out as best as possible how to help them. I think the scientific method, including the peer-review process, provides a good tool for that. I don't intend to suggest abandoning it.

I'll have to give some thought to what I would suggest myself as an alternative, to be honest. Perhaps having some organization that funds such studies or publishes its own journal while making a point of not taking money from the companies producing these drugs. Seems like those would already exist though. Perhaps crowd-funding them. Or perhaps just having a network of therapists who can better share knowledge about what works for their clients and what doesn't. The article implied that the main problem was that the therapists just weren't getting their hands on the information they needed, even though it was available somewhere.

Anyway, it's late at night and I haven't developed any clear opinion or thoughts, so.

(edit, another minor thought occurred to me. I feel like "sick society" is kinda subjective, and I'm not sure a society could exist which wouldn't cause someone living in it to be depressed. That might be near-inevitable.)

I'm just talking about a general willingness to look at all things, and not to limit anything unless you yourself understand why. Scientific method is a good method, but not unless it comes with a willingness to use it in many places and look at all the results, and not if the process is just a "trophy" to encourage acceptance of validity of loftier theories that are upheld by perpetuation of insitutions rather than individual discernment of rational evidence.

Or more specifically I am just saying not to trust what they say, because they have to put so many of their business interests before what is right or good. I can't even tell you what is right, because you wouldn't know how to use it, if you didn't figure it out yourself. Part of that is what all religions have described, simply improving the quality of your life on all levels; diet, fun/excersize, knowledge, awareness, etc...

I was turned on to this documentary film recently, and I think it shows a good portrayal of what things need to change before we can achieve a human society that is "thriving." I agree that it may be a permanent part of life to feel bad about something, but I KNOW we can do just way, way better than we have been doing! Most of our problems have been created by us, but that is the good news, it means we can fix most of it! The rest we can overcome as a global humanity by the surplus we will achieve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s

I think that "Self work" might be the best thing that anyone could do to combat a mental disorder, such as overwhelming depression/anxiety. That doesn't mean you shouldn't seek advice from someone else or even a place outside of yourself, but you should try to figure out why you are feeling upset, then figure out what you can "do" to make your actions align better with your feelings. Displacing these parts of yourself will cause literally any number of disorders. Thoughts, emotions, and actions (3 parts of our consciousness).

"Sick society" isn't really subjective, when you learn enough about morality and develop a full awareness to see it from a point of developed consciousness. Don't freak out because he was an ex-satanist; mistakes are there for us to learn from. But the clearest and fullest explanation of morality I have become aware of has come from Mark Pasio of: www.whatonearthishappening.com He doesn't sell anything, and he doesn't make understanding morality more complex like many religous metaphors often do. I don't agree with everything he says, and he will ask you not to believe anything he says unless you understand why it is. But he is a true plethora of information for any serious freethinker to dive into! Once you understand the simple basics that create this "integral" theory, you can start seeing how smaller and more limited systems (religion, science, government, practically anything really!) "fit" into the larger system.

Joeknows wrote:Scientific method is a good method, but not unless it comes with a willingness to use it in many places and look at all the results, and not if the process is just a "trophy" to encourage acceptance of validity of loftier theories that are upheld by perpetuation of insitutions rather than individual discernment of rational evidence.

What hypocrisy! The heart and soul of the scientific method is the use of empirical evidence. Several of us at the Fayetteville Freethinkers have asked Joeknows repeatedly to provide empirical evidence for his claims, and he has explicitly refused to do so. Instead, he showers us with insults and gibberish--self-contradictory gibberish at that.

Joeknows has no idea what he's doing.

Joeknows wrote:I was turned on to this documentary film recently, and I think it shows a good portrayal of what things need to change before we can... [blah blah blah]

Since Joe has no faculty of discernment whatsoever, let's see what documentary he has fallen for this time. Oh, a conspiracy movie/movement called "Thrive." Hadn't heard of that one. Watched a couple about two minutes of it. At four minutes it's already reaching for the free energy stuff. Same old warmed over crap. Thanks to the power of science, takes two seconds to find a nice debunk:

For all of its bluster and bravado about a “new paradigm,” Thrive contributed very little to the conspiracy theory underground that was fundamentally new. All that was new was the packaging, which is a shiny object that can only hope to distract the masses for a limited time. Ancient aliens? Been around since 1968. Crop circles? Old news. Money conspiracies? Lyndon LaRouche was doing that in the 80s. “Global Domination Agenda”? Every Alex Jones radio show since 1998 has been about that. Far right-wing Libertarian political propaganda? Ron Paul was peddling that folderol in 2007; now, after two spectacularly embarrassing failures at running for president, he has (mercifully) been put out to pasture, and his sycophantic fan base is finally fading away.

Substantively, the only truly novel idea contributed by Thrive was the obsession with the “torus” shape. (Of course the idea existed long before, but had never been injected into the conspiracy underground before). This proved to be a non-starter among conspiracy theorists, who revel in gloom, apocalypse and disaster. If it can’t oppress you, take away your freedoms, abduct you, give you an anal probe or blow up the World Trade Center, conspiracy theorists probably won’t be interested in it. So scratch the “torus” idea." Thrive Debunked

Oh, I see, it's just trying to pick up the discard pile of losers who fell for Zeitgeist:

"Here is one place where Thrive failed to live up to the predecessor it hoped to imitate, the Zeitgeist Movement, which was similarly a fan club of approbation for the infamous (and roundly debunked) 2007 conspiracy theory movie Zeitgeist: The Movie. As we all know, the Zeitgeist experience was the blueprint for Thrive. Although the Zeitgeist Movement imploded in 2011 and has now shriveled to a tiny burned-out nub of high-commitment supporters who have been largely forgotten by the outside world,..." Thrive Debunked

Joe, having no discernment or critical thinking skills, or ability to even comprehend basic words, is a prime rube for these silly conspiracy flicks that pop up and then disappear. How boring. Just imagine, our very own Joeknows, falling for something like this...

"...Thrive has no staying power. It’s a shiny toy that attracts the temporary attention of conspiracy theorists, and then after it’s been debunked and the requisite “paid disinformation agent” accusations have been vomited up against the doubters of the film, the conspiracy nuts lose interest and move on to the next shiny toy. This demonstrates that, even among conspiracy theorists, Thrive operates at a highly superficial level. It generates very little sustained contemplation, thoughtful discussion or even self-reflection. It’s bubble-gum candy, intellectual junk food. To be sure this is as much the fault of the defective mentality of the conspiracy theorist underground—which vociferously discourages any attempt at intellectual analysis—as it is the failure of Thrive, but it’s telling that there’s so little “there” there behind most public discussions of the film." Thrive Debunked

Joe puts this kind of foo foo in his head, so it should be no surprise that the same stuff comes out of his head. Garbage in, garbage out. This fellow concludes:

My contributors and I have, in the past year, successfully refuted every major assertion made in the film. There’s nothing of substance left standing of Thrive. Our work is completed. Thrive has been completely debunked. Even if it wasn’t, John Robbins and the repudiators have rendered further effort in deconstructing the film largely pointless, because it’s clear that the film is not going to have any real resonance in the future beyond the realm of conspiracy theorists and New Agers who already know about it.

But, like a dead oil tanker that continues to leak toxins into the environment decades after the main oil spill has been contained, Thrive will continue to infect a small, steady trickle of viewers with its conspiracy poison, whether its new victims are young people who are just entering the dark and nihilistic world of paranoia, or other potential fans who simply haven’t heard about the movie before. For that reason, this blog will remain up for at least a while. It’s already helped a lot of people, and can continue to do some good, even if it is no longer actively updated. ...

What I feel most toward fans of Thrive is not anger or even pity, but sadness. What could have been great hope, promise and energy of a generation of young people who want to change the world has been squandered, bastardized and ultimately wasted by sad obsessions with bizarre conspiracy theories that can do nothing—absolutely nothing—to move our society forward or address the problems within it. This is the tragedy of conspiracy thinking." Thrive Debunked

Indeed.

I provide the excerpts above because they provide an interesting insight into the mindless mindset of the Joenoses of the world.

Joeknows wrote:
Scientific method is a good method, but not unless it comes with a willingness to use it in many places and look at all the results, and not if the process is just a "trophy" to encourage acceptance of validity of loftier theories that are upheld by perpetuation of insitutions rather than individual discernment of rational evidence.


What hypocrisy! The heart and soul of the scientific method is the use of empirical evidence. Several of us at the Fayetteville Freethinkers have asked Joeknows repeatedly to provide empirical evidence for his claims, and he has explicitly refused to do so. Instead, he showers us with insults and gibberish--self-contradictory gibberish at that.

Joeknows has no idea what he's doing.

I want to preserve the entirety of your post here to show you how what you JUST said, is completely invalid. And that you continue to try to see the information, only in a way that won't harm your belief system. You really think that it is hypocrisy to say that you can use the scientific method and go astray? Well look at this simple example to show how this could be.

1: A person only ever uses the scientific method on butterflies (because he likes them best!) This person may be the most methodical researcher, with the most keen and insightful eye for detail. And this person could spend the entirety of their lives gaining information about butterflies. But being the world's greatest export on butterflies doesn't mean they have put ANY effort towards knowing other topics of information. Sure, there are many parallels of similarities that can be drawn from butterflies and used on spiders or beetles, but as soon as you move out of your field of specialty, the "success rate" of your information as it applies to the REST of reality, is going to drop from about 90% usefulness to around 1-10% depending on the individual.

Do you see that using this "method" perfectly, can only give results as valid as the dedication of the individual? A perfect method can be limited by something as minor as an individual's belief that butterflies are more interesting than other insects. A person who ended up on a deserted island, can only learn from the information on THAT island; and if he was born on that island he will never believe in things like "elephants" or "giraffes" if they don't exist in his environment.

Let me break it down mathematically, because as even your own ignorant buddy said, "math doesn't lie." Something imperfect added to something perfect, doesn't make the sum of the information also "perfect." Let's say we have tested this "system" and found somehow that it equals "10." For it to "perfectly" fit the information about reality, the numbers have to add up precisely to the answer. If it is a few over, you are not correct and have miscalculated somewhere. If it is a few under, you are not correct and have miscalculated somewhere.

You can't just say, "we got close enough, let's build a theory and forget about testing it ever again..." You have to get a precise answer, and get it every time! Your scientism is overshooting the sum of the answers, and then making up ludicrous theories to account for this "extra data" that isn't explained anywhere.

Several of us at the Fayetteville Freethinkers have asked Joeknows repeatedly to provide empirical evidence for his claims, and he has explicitly refused to do so.

re: This is just a dirty lie from a dirty man who won't put any effort forward to help anyone but himself. Dardedar is just the same. Savonrola actually tried to dispute many, many pieces of what I am still presenting. And if you think you can know definitively what something is, without even looking at all of it...well that's just another Medal for Outstanding Ignorance, that you can hang on your wall with the others that you have earned for yourself.


In summary, all you said is "[joeknows doesn't have a rational discernment of the information]." And that your "[friends]" also didn't look at very much of the information. And without any grasp of it, you are willing to go boldly forward and proclaim that it is "self-contradictory gibberish at that." This is just a baseless attempt to assassinate my character, instead of the information I present. But does it honestly matter if I am someone that can be "trusted" for you to have a willingness to consider the information I present? I think this greatly speaks to the only types of venues from which you are willing to consider anything.

self-contradictory gibberish at that.

re: This was worth mentioning again. This is almost as bad as dardedar stating that he is able to "understand" that all my posts are "[gibberish...lies...and fallacies]." Seriously, if they were nothing but gibberish, could you draw ANY rational conclusion from them? Wouldn't the appropriate response instead be to say, "Huh?," or "Where did you get this idea from?" or "Why do you think this specific part has to be that way for the effects of what you say to be true?"

There were a few questions from these two "ignorants," but they were SO general that they could have answered them for themselves, had they been willing. Instead they aimed specifically to "derail" my presentation instead of considering anything within it at its functional value. And only someone SO dumb, would say something like "self-contradictory gibberish." Isn't this phrase an OXYMORON? How can something have the quality of gibberish, meaning it is undecipherable to get relevant information from, and yet it still logically proves itself false?

Which one is it? Do I prove myself false? Or is my information unintelligible? Because it CAN'T be BOTH! I know you are trying to decide which way you want to prove me false with, but stop trying to "decide" for the information, and start letting the information convey simply what reality IS.

You have put countless feelings into words about how I have done nothing but contradict myself, but I think I have shown DIRECTLY the ways that many of this organization contradict their own thoughts and feelings. I don't hate this group or mean to destroy it. I am here to build information between individuals. But if the ONLY way that you can receive information is if it is popularly accepted or handed down to you from an institution that decides the fate of your job...then you truly aren't a Freethinker, and don't belong here. The rest, I hope you will inspire and build yourself to keep knowing ever more.

Joeknows wrote:I want to preserve the entirety of your post here to show you how what you JUST said, is completely invalid.

Why? You did not address any specifics. Why is it invalid? You don't give any specifics.

Joeknows wrote:You really think that it is hypocrisy to say that you can use the scientific method and go astray?

Nope. I explained why it is hypocritical. Can't you read plain English? I said the heart and soul of the scientific method is the use of empirical evidence, and you provide NONE. So your fulsome praise of the scientific method makes your unwillingness to use it all the more hypocritical.

Joeknows wrote:Well look at this simple example to show how this could be.

1: A person only ever uses the scientific method on butterflies (because he likes them best!) This person may be the most methodical researcher, with the most keen and insightful eye for detail. And this person could spend the entirety of their lives gaining information about butterflies. But being the world's greatest export on butterflies doesn't mean they have put ANY effort towards knowing other topics of information. Sure, there are many parallels of similarities that can be drawn from butterflies and used on spiders or beetles, but as soon as you move out of your field of specialty, the "success rate" of your information as it applies to the REST of reality, is going to drop from about 90% usefulness to around 1-10% depending on the individual.

So? Show where I'm wrong. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT I AM MISTAKEN? Where is your evidence that you are correct?

You provide NONE.

DOUG wrote:Several of us at the Fayetteville Freethinkers have asked Joeknows repeatedly to provide empirical evidence for his claims, and he has explicitly refused to do so.

Joeknows wrote:re: This is just a dirty lie from a dirty man who won't put any effort forward to help anyone but himself. Dardedar is just the same. Savonrola actually tried to dispute many, many pieces of what I am still presenting. And if you think you can know definitively what something is, without even looking at all of it...well that's just another Medal for Outstanding Ignorance, that you can hang on your wall with the others that you have earned for yourself.

No, YOU are being deceitful. We've asked you for evidence for MONTHS. You provided NOTHING BUT WILD, UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS.

On Valentine's Day 2014, you wrote:

Joeknows wrote:Not only were you unable to fully consider anything I described, you are STILL unable to keep to the topic. We aren't talking about astrology or astrotheology...YET! We might get there. but not if you can't show that you understand that truth is truth EVERY TIME, and not just when you feel it should be.

Remember that? So you won't even begin to discuss astrology, which is what you came here to defend, until we agree to accept all your statements as true. And you pretend to be using the scientific method?

Then on March 14th, you wrote:

Joeknows wrote:I think I am ready to present what I have so far.

After that, all we ever got was a bunch of UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS. Gibberish about levels of something or other--no evidence that the universe has such levels--and other such nonsense. No data, no empirical research, NOTHING USEFUL. This, after I TOLD YOU that we are an empirically-based group.

No, you have not attempted to support your claims, Joe. Not one bit. You can continue to call me names and delude yourself, but your posts are here for all to see, and they show your lack of evidence.

Now all we get from you are insults and lies. Typical. All talk, no sense or substance.

Joeknows wrote:...all you said is "[joeknows doesn't have a rational discernment of the information]." And that your "[friends]" also didn't look at very much of the information. And without any grasp of it, you are willing to go boldly forward and proclaim that it is "self-contradictory gibberish at that." This is just a baseless attempt to assassinate my character, instead of the information I present.

Joe, you are LYING.The claim that you contradicted yourself is not baseless, as you pretend.

I'd shown how you previously wrote:

Joeknows wrote:And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology...

and then you later asserted the opposite:

Joeknows wrote:"Pure terminology" isn't the only way to prove or know this information...They aren't "judged on terminology"

So I have good grounds to assert that you contradict yourself.

And I find it amusing that YOU did not address the evidence I provided for your contradiction, and you call me names like "dirty." So you accuse me of "a baseless attempt to assassinate my character, instead of the information I present," yet that is what you did, not I.

Joeknows wrote:You win the prize for biggest idiot.

Joeknows wrote:well that's just another Medal for Outstanding Ignorance, that you can hang on your wall with the others that you have earned for yourself.

So far Joeknows has been more generous with awards than he has been with evidence. We might get more evidence from him if his evidence could project his insecurities.

Joeknows wrote:But being the world's greatest export on butterflies doesn't mean they have put ANY effort towards knowing other topics of information.

This is pretty rich. Joeknows claims to be speaking on the nature of matter and energy. But my expertise is in chemistry, which is the study of matter and the changes that it undergoes, those changes necessarily involving energy transformations.
So when Joeknows made claims about energy, I used my extensive understanding of energy to analyze what Joe has said. This is exactly what he is saying is good and valid application of scientific knowledge. But when I showed that Joe must be wrong, he cried foul and insisted that my scientific expertise is not appropriate. This is like making lots of claims about butterflies, and then when I explain that he's mistaken about aspects of butterflies, saying that his butterflies are not really butterflies, so my knowledge of butterflies isn't applicable.

Yet, later, Joe tried to give me examples of energy (real energy, my energy) and show how his idea of energy works the same way. Using the analogy: Joe tried to lecture me about real butterflies, and then show how his butterflies ARE really butterflies; he must maintain that his butterflies [energy] are really butterflies [energy] in order to make his argument yet insist that his butterflies [energy] are not butterflies [energy] lest his ideas be refuted by the butterfly [energy] specialist.

When Doug points out that you're hypocritical and self-contradictory, Joe, there are lots of examples to show that Doug is correct.

Joeknows wrote:Do you see that using this "method" perfectly, can only give results as valid as the dedication of the individual?

Good point. I have enough dedication to have gotten a college degree about matter and energy changes and to keep up with mankind's advancing knowledge in this field. You can't say either of these things about yourself without lying (which you do anyway). Come back when you have an actual education about energy.

Joeknows wrote:Savonrola [sic] actually tried to dispute many, many pieces of what I am still presenting.

Savonarola (note the spelling -- you speak of paying attention to detail, but I've now corrected your misspelling of my name multiple times, and you still can't learn from your mistakes) successfully refuted many pieces of your nonsense. And that's because I have an understanding of this topic, and you don't.

Joeknows wrote:

Which one is it? Do I prove myself false? Or is my information unintelligible? Because it CAN'T be BOTH!

Of course it can. You make the rudimentary mistake the someone is claiming that all of your material either contradicts itself, or all of your material is gibberish. But this isn't true. As anyone can see, most of your material is gibberish while a great portion of the remainder that is not, is self-contradictory. Regardless, it's all an unreadable garbled mess of silliness. That you can't see through the palpable nonsense that is the Thrive bunch, reveals this in spades, if anyone needed another example.

We have some nice roasts of Zeitgeist too. I gave a presentation on that claptrap at a meeting once. Ripped it to shreds.

In house Zeitgeist roast: viewtopic.php?p=23077#p23077

re:@dardedar
I don't like Zeitgeist. It may present some information, but it doesn't say anything about how to use it. It doesn't present any options. And it is funded by a group (the venus project) that shows know recognition of what it would take to bring about this utopia civilization. (wow, do I sound just like you now? It's because there ARE legitimate deficiencies in its presentation.)

But the person who posted this was asking me directly about what could be done, or what other options were available. There was no reason to start attacking my character. This person didn't think that anything I said was bizarre or crazy. So respect this other person, and try to contain your responses towards whats is relevant to the information at hand. Thrive is not Zeitgeist, it IS offering a possible solution. In fact the name of the movie is "Thrive: What on Earth Will it Take?" They DO present several ideas towards bettering our current situation. And if you can't recognize the problems of this world, maybe you have been focusing on yourself too much? And not the "good" kind of focusing on yourself (like self development).

Joeknows wrote:
Quote:
Which one is it? Do I prove myself false? Or is my information unintelligible? Because it CAN'T be BOTH!

Of course it can. You make the rudimentary mistake the someone is claiming that all of your material either contradicts itself, or all of your material is gibberish. But this isn't true. As anyone can see, most of your material is gibberish while a great portion of the remainder that is not, is self-contradictory. Regardless, it's all an unreadable garbled mess of silliness. That you can't see through the palpable nonsense that is the Thrive bunch, reveals this in spades, if anyone needed another example.

You think it can be both? Unintelligible and contradicting? Well then every topic must have contained an exact ratio of "uintelligibility" and "contradicting-ness." Because if it didn't, then there were parts that you could have distinguished as rational and shown why, and there are parts that you could have distinguished as unintelligible and shown why. But I really didn't see you do much at all besides pointing fingers and accusations. Why don't you show us your expertise of this from the move THRIVE. Because if you truly ARE more informed, I would really like to learn from you. Sincerely. And I believe that I am dedicating myself to recognizing this "more informed" processing of information in individuals. So please, make some "specific" statements about why Thrive is invalid. Maybe even talk a little about the contents? (gasp!)