The concept of Truth Mills

Thommo · **#41** by **Thommo** » Oct 22, 2018 1:41 am

jamest wrote:James has been struggling with his own strings for a few years, but he doesn't like to talk about it.

Uh-huh.

Puppet = 49 posts
Strings = 29 posts

SafeAsMilk · **#42** by **SafeAsMilk** » Oct 22, 2018 1:47 am

But beware, dear Thommo! For the night is short, and memory is long. Long and shiny, like an iced mustelid sliding up some villain's treacherous butthole.

SafeAsMilk would love to help you out, but he's in a mostly naked, oily wrestling match with his strings, and has been for a few years now. SafeAsMilk don't wanna talk about it, or at least that's what he told me as we were chatting one night over a couple of cold, sweaty cans of Bear Whizz Beer. But if you need inquire because his story is just too enticing, I shan't stop you.

Sweet dreams. You bastard.

Hermit · **#43** by **Hermit** » Oct 22, 2018 3:32 am

Thommo wrote:Oh my god, what have you done to your avatar!

Yes, LucidFlight, I meant to post about that in the Rant Thread, and demand, yes, Demand, you reinstall your previous one post haste!

Hermit · **#44** by **Hermit** » Oct 22, 2018 3:37 am

Thommo wrote:
What else did you say?
You confused a group of four people which included yourself with a group of four people that didn't include yourself, which I guess showed you weren't really paying attention to the post you tried to lay into.
You made a song and dance over whether you'd explicitly said "claim", even though nobody said you did - that didn't seem worth debating.
There was the usual sprinkling of personalisations, badgers, buying pints and grandiose proclamations that I've explained far too many times already bore me to tears.
You whined a bit about thumbs up, again, a familiar refrain.
You groundlessly accused me of trying to make you look like a cunt for a decade - I haven't, didn't seem worth saying though.
You then pick up again on your refrain of including yourself in a group you refer to as both cunts trying to undermine you and intelligent - a clear FUA violation, but not one I really care about, especially given the clear scattergun approach you're taking as you didn't even pay attention to the fact you were in that group.
You finally end up by saying that your thread is worthless given your audience - I don't disagree, although given that you knew your audience before you started, and hence must have realised in advance that it was worthless to create it... meh
Finally there's a meaningless overblown and ludicrously pompous claim that the half baked and inconsistently used term truth mills is going to save the world - I guess I can say "lol, no" to that if you like? Or "he who claims bears the burden of evidence"?

You read all of his post? I only got part of the way through before I decided to report it, suggesting someone move it to "The Rant Thread", where a good portion of James's other contributions belong.

jamest · **#45** by **jamest** » Oct 22, 2018 11:12 pm

Why did you report my post, Richard, having only (by your owm admission) read a fraction of it? Do you have a mental or moral problem we should be made aware of? Or are you just stupidly impulsive?

jamest · **#46** by **jamest** » Oct 22, 2018 11:20 pm

You guys aren't taking this problem seriously. I want to know why you would protect and defend your truth mills unto your death beds.
I could understand why a guy like Henry the fuckin' 8th might have a problem with this philosophy, but he had a lot to lose. You guys are mere peasants. Stop acting the Richard.

Thommo · **#47** by **Thommo** » Oct 22, 2018 11:40 pm

jamest wrote:You guys aren't taking this problem seriously.

Nor are you.

jamest · **#48** by **jamest** » Oct 22, 2018 11:50 pm

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:You guys aren't taking this problem seriously.

Nor are you.

I started the thread. I've had nothing other than bullshit from you all, especially you.

Thommo · **#49** by **Thommo** » Oct 22, 2018 11:58 pm

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:You guys aren't taking this problem seriously.

Nor are you.

I started the thread. I've had nothing other than bullshit from you all, especially you.

That's not true, you've had meaningful points in reply.

But I simply don't agree with your sentiment. You're more willing to make a ludicrous claim like "the concept of truth mills will save the world" with not one scrap of support than to even properly define what a truth mill is, or rationally explain what criteria could be used for saying that person A has one, or has an improperly functioning one.

That to me is the epitome of not taking it seriously, not to mention hubristic.

SafeAsMilk · **#50** by **SafeAsMilk** » Oct 23, 2018 12:31 am

Glad I'm not the only one who can't even tell what he means by truth mill. I mean, if it boils down to processing information with reference to currently held ideas, this is what everyone everywhere does, including jamest. What's the alternative, not processing information at all?

jamest · **#51** by **jamest** » Oct 23, 2018 12:54 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:You guys aren't taking this problem seriously.

Nor are you.

I started the thread. I've had nothing other than bullshit from you all, especially you.

That's not true, you've had meaningful points in reply.

But I simply don't agree with your sentiment. You're more willing to make a ludicrous claim like "the concept of truth mills will save the world" with not one scrap of support than to even properly define what a truth mill is, or rationally explain what criteria could be used for saying that person A has one, or has an improperly functioning one.

That to me is the epitome of not taking it seriously, not to mention hubristic.

Notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned concept has been used by me for several years and seems readily understandable, I gave a definition thereof in post 12 of page 1.

Though I have my moments of taking the piss and banter etc., to be accused of not taking philosophy seriously is ludicrous. When are you ever going to become genuine, if ever?

You suddenly seem (within the last year or two) to have turned into the Donald Trump of ratskep. I shit you not.

jamest · **#52** by **jamest** » Oct 23, 2018 1:04 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:Glad I'm not the only one who can't even tell what he means by truth mill. I mean, if it boils down to processing information with reference to currently held ideas, this is what everyone everywhere does, including jamest. What's the alternative, not processing information at all?

You finally contributed something significant to a philosophy thread, by asking a significant question.

Take a look at 'me'. How the fuck do you think that a 'person' like me can possibly exist except as "an alternative"?

I frequent no church. All scientists apparently hate me. I think that all politicians are corrupt wankers. Art is a distraction, so artists won't like me either.

Don't bullshit me about not understanding what a truth mill is. I'm quite convinced that the concept is simple to umderstand and has been defined anyway on page one. Stop acting the cunt.

Thommo · **#53** by **Thommo** » Oct 23, 2018 1:05 am

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:

Nor are you.

I started the thread. I've had nothing other than bullshit from you all, especially you.

That's not true, you've had meaningful points in reply.

But I simply don't agree with your sentiment. You're more willing to make a ludicrous claim like "the concept of truth mills will save the world" with not one scrap of support than to even properly define what a truth mill is, or rationally explain what criteria could be used for saying that person A has one, or has an improperly functioning one.

That to me is the epitome of not taking it seriously, not to mention hubristic.

Notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned concept has been used by me for several years and seems readily understandable, I gave a definition thereof in post 12 of page 1.

As I explained, in one of the several detailed replies that you ignored, you've used the term inconsistently and in mutually contradictory fashion.

For example, in #12 of this thread you say:

jamest wrote:Anyway, for me the term was meant as a reference for the approach/method in which we address and process any input or idea.

Now, I'd agree, that's a definition. It's not a great definition, and you kind of rambled on for the rest of that paragraph with ideas on the same theme that were sort of similar, which makes it a lot less clear than it could be, but OK, let's run with that.

Now, let's apply that definition to post #28 of this thread in which you say:

jamest wrote:There is no place for bigots in the future's grand plan and for those that haven't yet gleaned this fact, every victim of a truth mill is a fucking bigot.

I escaped the truth mill years ago.

So in the first instance a truth mill is simply a method of processing ideas, something we all have. In the second instance it's the province of "fucking bigots" and you don't have one, even though you manifestly process ideas.

I provided other examples of how you'd used this term inconsistently in the past.

Whether we take the first definition or the mutually contradictory implicit second one, in neither case are we given any objective way of telling who has a "functioning" truth mill and who has a "rusty" one.

This is definitively not taking the issue seriously and not providing any kind of meaningful, useful or consistent definition. It's obvious that it's not going to change anything, let alone the world.

jamest wrote:Though I have my moments of taking the piss and banter etc., to be accused of not taking philosophy seriously is ludicrous.

You can think it ludicrous if you like. I think it's obvious.

You fill your threads with inane catchphrases and insults about badgers, Donald Trump and whatever else fleetingly crosses your mind instead of with anything that really can be called reasoning, philosophy or argument.

You don't have to do this. You can stop any time. You constantly claim (another thing that I would say you inappropriately fill threads with) that you are very intelligent, so taking that at face value you could apply that intelligence to clearly communicating your ideas in ordered fashion, filling in the stages of argumentation as you go.

That I would say would be taking it seriously.

felltoearth · **#54** by **felltoearth** » Oct 23, 2018 1:05 am

jamest wrote:
You suddenly seem (within the last year or two) to have turned into the Donald Trump of ratskep. I shit you not.

How can anyone take you seriously when you write stupid shit like this?

Thommo · **#55** by **Thommo** » Oct 23, 2018 1:13 am

felltoearth wrote:
jamest wrote:
You suddenly seem (within the last year or two) to have turned into the Donald Trump of ratskep. I shit you not.

How can anyone take you seriously when you write stupid shit like this?

Well compared to this:

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:Uh-huh.

What a swift and obviously cuntish riposte to such a serious post. Again.

It didn't read like a serious post to me at all. It read like an angry rant that contradicted previous posts, and turned others into not-so-thinly veiled personal attacks.

The badgers have remained in the freezer this night. I have been both calm and forgiving.

James has been struggling with his own strings for a few years, but he doesn't like to talk about it. He's still a puppet worthy of my interest though, so give him a break perhaps.

Good night, squire.

I genuinely found it a step up. It's slightly less redolent of some kind of psychological dissociative break at least. And doesn't contain a transparent untruth like jamest not liking talking about puppets and strings*.

*Which, at the risk of bringing up a sore spot for james from yesterday's debate can be checked with competent usage of the forum's search function.

SafeAsMilk · **#56** by **SafeAsMilk** » Oct 23, 2018 1:14 am

jamest wrote:
Notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned concept has been used by me for several years and seems readily understandable, I gave a definition thereof in post 12 of page 1.

Just because you've used the term for several years doesn't mean you've used it meaningfully, and you claiming that it's readily understandable doesn't make it so. Let's look at that definition, shall we?

Anyway, for me the term was meant as a reference for the approach/method in which we address and process any input or idea. This is usually dictated by previously accepted dogma residing within the skull, such that the incoming idea is processed in that light. This is even true for input about physical events where the dogma of scientific beliefs dictates what we think is happening or shall happen. Each belief we accept adds to the machinery within our skull and thus contributes to the manner in which an incoming idea will be processed.

So, literally everyone at all times, including yourself. Seems a bit of a broad net to be casting, don't you think?

The output is thus dictated by the 'machinery' and not the input.

So don't you think you processing pretty much everything you post through your preconceptions about philosophy and metaphysics, views you've admitted to be unwilling to change or challenge at all, is the perfect example of this?

This explains the diversity and spectrum of opinion one can readily witness in any arena of life.

How? I thought the point you were just making was that having a set of machinery causes different input to be processed the same way, hence a lack of diversity?

You suddenly seem (within the last year or two) to have turned into the Donald Trump of ratskep. I shit you not.

How's that? This should be good :lol:

SafeAsMilk · **#57** by **SafeAsMilk** » Oct 23, 2018 1:15 am

jamest wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Glad I'm not the only one who can't even tell what he means by truth mill. I mean, if it boils down to processing information with reference to currently held ideas, this is what everyone everywhere does, including jamest. What's the alternative, not processing information at all?

You finally contributed something significant to a philosophy thread, by asking a significant question.

Take a look at 'me'. How the fuck do you think that a 'person' like me can possibly exist except as "an alternative"?

I frequent no church. All scientists apparently hate me. I think that all politicians are corrupt wankers. Art is a distraction, so artists won't like me either.

Don't bullshit me about not understanding what a truth mill is. I'm quite convinced that the concept is simple to umderstand and has been defined anyway on page one. Stop acting the cunt.

Thommo · **#58** by **Thommo** » Oct 23, 2018 1:19 am

I do like "umderstand".

Thinking about it, and connecting it with the Donald Trump motif, I'm sure we could make a great neologism out of "dumderstand" as well. For example "Trump's devoted followers dumderstand that CNN is fake news". :think:

jamest · **#59** by **jamest** » Oct 23, 2018 1:28 am

felltoearth wrote:
jamest wrote:
You suddenly seem (within the last year or two) to have turned into the Donald Trump of ratskep. I shit you not.

How can anyone take you seriously when you write stupid shit like this?

I genuinely think that Thommo has been acting the cunt for the last couple of years. You won't have experienced it since he has no beef with you, but I have. I mean, I've been interacting with him for many years, but in the last year or so he's made a special effort to piss me off and undermine me. What was also noteworthy for me was that just this week a member was suspended for more-or-less wishing him dead. That was KIR, who as we all know has his own problems. Indeed, he even thinks that I'm a wanker now. I'm a controlling theist, apparently, though in spite of all that he's never ever once threatened me.

I've had a lot of conversations with KIR. Indeed, at one point recently we were considering meeting-up. I don't know him well, but I know him well-enough to know that if he's threatening Thommo, that Thommo is acting the serious cunt, even when theism isn't an issue.

SafeAsMilk · **#60** by **SafeAsMilk** » Oct 23, 2018 1:35 am

jamest wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Glad I'm not the only one who can't even tell what he means by truth mill. I mean, if it boils down to processing information with reference to currently held ideas, this is what everyone everywhere does, including jamest. What's the alternative, not processing information at all?

You finally contributed something significant to a philosophy thread, by asking a significant question.

Oh boy, you're finally going to attempt a serious answer instead of just calling names!

Stop acting the cunt.

Oh. Well, so much for that. Moving on...

Take a look at 'me'. How the fuck do you think that a 'person' like me can possibly exist except as "an alternative"?

I know that you think believing outlandish things makes a person special. I'm not sure why, because believing outlandish things isn't uncommon. I mean, dime a dozen, really. I'm not sure what you think you're an alternative to, and I'm not sure if you're trying to say you don't process information.

I frequent no church. All scientists apparently hate me. I think that all politicians are corrupt wankers. Art is a distraction, so artists won't like me either.

He's a loner Dottie, a rebel.

Don't bullshit me about not understanding what a truth mill is. I'm quite convinced that the concept is simple to umderstand and has been defined anyway on page one.

You certainly wrote some words, at any rate.

The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

Who is online