LumberJocks

How Many of You Placed On Blocklist For Speaking the Truth?

  • Advertise with us

« back to Coffee Lounge forum

Forum topic by John L posted 07-13-2015 01:04 AM 1493 views 0 times favorited 55 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View John L's profile

John L

148 posts in 628 days


07-13-2015 01:04 AM

How many of you have stated your opinion, on a thread, to the best of your ability to be honest and truthful, and later discovered you have been blocked from further discussion, by the originator of the thread?

I have been placed on “Dan’um Style’s” official Blocklist for replying to his Collectivist/Socialist propaganda topic about Wealth Redistribution, through Class Warfare. I noticed that there are a great deal of participation, so I chimed in with this post: http://lumberjocks.com/replies/1706754 . I was referring to Evan Sayett’s ground breaking book, “The Kindergarden of Eden”, because the adolescent belief in Wealth redistribution never works in the end. It punishes success, and dumbs down incentive.

And just as obvious, Socialism never works. In order for it to continue on, even after failure, it must resort to ever escalating force and then violence to remain in power. And “Dan’um Style” is showing his Collectivist “style” by shutting down dissent in true Collectivist fashion.

How many others have fallen victim to this sort of shutting down of dissent?

-- Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil - Thomas Mann


55 replies so far

View dhaas's profile

dhaas

6 posts in 754 days


#1 posted 07-13-2015 11:56 PM

You should be honored to be on that list. I suspect that most woodworkers are self-actualized and agree with your opinion. I hope I can be put on the list.

View MarcusM's profile

MarcusM

57 posts in 2445 days


#2 posted 07-14-2015 02:14 AM

gee, John L, maybe you could have tried not being so personally insulting with your remark and just tried to add to the conversation; just saying!

-- Tilbilly Mark

View John L's profile

John L

148 posts in 628 days


#3 posted 07-14-2015 02:54 AM


gee, John L, maybe you could have tried not being so personally insulting with your remark and just tried to add to the conversation; just saying!

- MarcusM

That’s insulting? I was just stating words of wisdom from Evan Sayat, a former Leftist weenie, who grew up after 9/11. People who believe in income redistribution and Collectivist ideology have a Kindergarden of Eden mentality they learned from early in life. Its call “Utopianism”, and has no relation to the Real World of how humans act.

I wrote about it right here: http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-13014.html

I spent a good deal of time perusing the thread, and truth be told, he really does have this adolescent mentality in a Bad Way. And I wasn’t besmirching his intellect. Lots of Leftists are highly intelligent. Even Einstein was convinced that Socialism was the way to go, even though its failed everywhere its applied. Its just that there is a world of difference between Intelligence and Reason(i.e. common sense). Intelligence is innate, and wisdom is accrued over time. In other words, as one matures.

I’ll confess that one of my shortcomings is lack of tact. Its the one thing I almost always got docked for on my OERs. I just tell it like it is. But I wasn’t being insulting OR disrespectful.

-- Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil - Thomas Mann

View Ghidrah's profile

Ghidrah

667 posts in 686 days


#4 posted 07-14-2015 03:41 AM

I read what there was of your 1st link and I have an above average grasp of the English language, and I own a dictionary. Your diatribe is antagonistic and laced with intentional sarcasm, insulting, (“Kindergarden of Eden” mentality, bloody shame that grown adults are unable to have their brain stuck in adolescence), along with lack of spelling and grammar skills.

If you indeed have the tools for an actual debate you left them in the back pocket of your other pants.

In case you’re bewildered by the 1st 3 lines of my response, it’s an attempt to put the statements from your link in perspective; the last line is an insult to your nubbin broin!

-- I meant to do that!

View John L's profile

John L

148 posts in 628 days


#5 posted 07-14-2015 03:46 AM


I read what there was of your 1st link and I have an above average grasp of the English language, and I own a dictionary. Your diatribe is antagonistic and laced with intentional sarcasm, insulting, (“Kindergarden of Eden” mentality, bloody shame that grown adults are unable to have their brain stuck in adolescence), along with lack of spelling and grammar skills.

If you indeed have the tools for an actual debate you left them in the back pocket of your other pants.

In case you re bewildered by the 1st 3 lines of my response, it s an attempt to put the statements from your link in perspective; the last line is an insult to your nubbin broin!

- Ghidrah

Perhaps it struck a nerve? But don’t worry, you will not be blocked here.

-- Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil - Thomas Mann

View DKV's profile

DKV

3940 posts in 1968 days


#6 posted 07-14-2015 04:09 PM

I can’t believe it. Dan’um is a pretty liberal guy when it comes to speaking your mind. Must be a mistake. What do you say Dan’um?

-- This is a Troll Free zone.

View CharlieM1958's profile

CharlieM1958

16242 posts in 3682 days


#7 posted 07-14-2015 04:27 PM

John, you remind me of a guy I know. He’s a genuinely good person, IMO, and we’ve been friends for nearly 20 years. But he is constantly alienating people because he just can’t seem to grasp the difference between stating an opposing viewpoint and making a personal attack. For example:

“Socialism has never worked anywhere it has been tried, and never will.” = perfectly civil argument

“Anyone who thinks socialism can ever work is mentally deficient.” = personal attack

To my friend, those two statements are interchangeable. He thinks they both say the same thing. In a way, they do. But in another way, there is a world of difference.

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

View waho6o9's profile

waho6o9

7174 posts in 2041 days


#8 posted 07-14-2015 04:37 PM

Consider it an honor JohnL.

View John L's profile

John L

148 posts in 628 days


#9 posted 07-14-2015 05:06 PM



“Anyone who thinks socialism can ever work is mentally deficient.” = personal attack
- CharlieM1958

Of course, I never stated anything akin to that. I’m perfectly aware that intelligence and logic are two entirely different things. Most people can’t seem to differentiate this, but its true. Intelligence is something that is innate, and added to with practice. Logic, on the other hand, is the result of maturity and application of the “School of Hard Knocks”.

Its called Common Sense. Years ago I formulated an equation for this, called the Wisdom Coefficient: http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-3496.html?highlight=Coefficient+of+Wisdom

Evan Sayat is Exactly Correct here in that Utopianism is the result of the mind failing to keep up with the physical maturation process. Anyone, who fails to consider the human importance of “self-interest” is living in “La-La Land”. Sorry, but its entirely accurate and not meant to be degrading. Its exactly what kindergardeners, and first graders are taught by well meaning teachers. Unfortunately it is laudable, but not practical.

It is self-interest that comes first and foremost, followed by taking care of others once the self-interest is satisfied. That is why there is a Ford Foundation, Carnegie Institute, and other huge charities designed to help others. These leaders in industry took care of business first, and then willingly passed out their wealth to others. And they didn’t need any Big Government to make them do it.

I was merely making him aware of the fact that his brain was woefully behind his physical self. He, and millions of others like him, seriously need to go out and purchase some more wisdom. And its really not expensive: there are many books devoted to Free Enterprise and Individual Liberty. And he can start with Frederic Bastiat.

-- Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil - Thomas Mann

View John L's profile

John L

148 posts in 628 days


#10 posted 07-14-2015 05:09 PM



I can t believe it. Dan um is a pretty liberal guy when it comes to speaking your mind. Must be a mistake. What do you say Dan um?

- DKV

He’s not Liberal at all. He’s a Progressive. I know this because I am a certified, dyed in the wool Liberal, in the Frederic Bastiat, John Stewart Mill, Frederich von Hayek tradition. I’m a proud Liberal because I believe fervently in Individual Liberty, which means among other things, a government broken down to its Lowest Common “Functional” Denominator.

-- Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil - Thomas Mann

View CharlieM1958's profile

CharlieM1958

16242 posts in 3682 days


#11 posted 07-14-2015 06:04 PM

For the record, my views on the subject of socialism are a lot closer to yours than to Dan’s.

Having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you think when intelligent people disagree it’s always because one is logically correct and the other logically incorrect? I don’t. Personally, I think people’s opinions are influenced by their own perspectives and life experiences. For that reason, two intelligent, logical people can look at the same set of facts and reach two different conclusions.

In my experience, I’m in trouble when I start viewing my conclusions as the truth. I’m not likely to be capable of learning much at that point. I find it much more enlightening to engage someone else in a less judgmental manner, to try to see why he came to a different conclusion than I did. It probably won’t change my opinion, but I may at least walk away with a better appreciation for his.

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

View John L's profile

John L

148 posts in 628 days


#12 posted 07-14-2015 10:42 PM


For the record, my views on the subject of socialism are a lot closer to yours than to Dan s.

Having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you think when intelligent people disagree it s always because one is logically correct and the other logically incorrect? I don t. Personally, I think people s opinions are influenced by their own perspectives and life experiences. For that reason, two intelligent, logical people can look at the same set of facts and reach two different conclusions.

The reason why two intelligent individuals, attempting to apply logic, may not agree is generally because of a lack of facts with one or more of the two.

I’ll give you a scientific example. As a physical anthropologist, who studied early hominids, I am very familiar with the earth’s climate, and how the last series of glaciations have affected early man. I’m also quite knowledgeable on how genetics and natural selection have helped early humans adapt to their environment. Consequently I know for a scientific fact that we are still in the middle of a major ice age, the Pleistocene, which has been going strong for the last 2.5 to 3 million years. I also know ,through reading the ice ring data from Lake Vostok, that the record clearly shows recurring glaciations that occur almost every 105,000 years. They closely parallel the Malankovitch Cycles. And I know, based on the scientific data, that we are due to reenter the next glaciation about right now.
And unlike Algore, I also know that CO2 is not the principle change of temperatures, but the other way around, by a period of 600-700 years.

Now, I can argue with climate scientists, who claim that global warming is a threat and humans are the principle blame. But the science doesn’t show that at all. I know from studying the solar cycles and looking at the current one, that the sun is headed into another solar minimum phase. The evidence clearly points toward a recurrent Grand Solar Minimum, such as the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century.

In other words, it is a cooling world that should have us concerned. Its overdue and could begin any time. And a sudden cooling would almost certainly cause mass starvation, killing perhaps over one billion humans. Keep in mind that a cooling world will be a drier world, which will shut down much of the ability to rely on farming.

Most scientists who trumpet the coming warming are wrong in their thesis, and I have no problem telling them that they are not only wrong, but are not privy to the scientific evidence. And if they are like Dr. Michael, Mann, they are using fraud in order to gain notoriety and money.

As for one being influenced by one’s own perspectives and life experiences, let’s take Dr. Michael Mann again. For him to lie about manipulated facts, and cheat on his “Hockey Stick” tells me that he was raised in a family that did not cherish certain absolutes, such as “Honesty” and “Integrity”. I graduated from the Citadel, and we maintained an honor system in which one will not “Lie, Cheat, Steal, or allow others to do the same” Those are absolutes with regard to morality. They don’t have to be part of the Ten Commandments, or the Hammurabi Law Code. These moral absolutes are in place because it enables humans to be successful within groups, AND successfully pass their genes on to the next generation.

In my experience, I m in trouble when I start viewing my conclusions as the truth. I m not likely to be capable of learning much at that point. I find it much more enlightening to engage someone else in a less judgmental manner, to try to see why he came to a different conclusion than I did. It probably won t change my opinion, but I may at least walk away with a better appreciation for his.
- CharlieM1958

What you are pushing here is a form of “Moral Relativism”. I’m not so much a fan of the late Alexander Hamilton, but he did make one astute observation a long time ago: “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. And all of this hinges on certain “Absolutes”.

-- Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil - Thomas Mann

View CharlieM1958's profile

CharlieM1958

16242 posts in 3682 days


#13 posted 07-15-2015 12:38 AM

I certainly agree with you when it come to people arguing factual points without actually knowing the facts. It’s rarely black and white, though. Most of the points people are divided over are a mixture of facts, emotions, conclusions, inferences, and moral interpretations.

When it comes to moral relativism, I stand guilty as charged. As you stated , there are certain moral absolutes that have come to exist because they enable humans to function successfully in groups. However, the details of how those moral absolutes are interpreted and applied change from culture to culture and generation to generation. (Women’s roles in society, for example.)

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

14167 posts in 3447 days


#14 posted 07-15-2015 01:27 AM


My Lord, ain t Socialism just great! Nothing like taking from the producers and distributing it all to the non-producers. What s not to love,............unless you are a producer of course.

Dan um Style, you definitely have a “Kindergarden of Eden” mentality. And you ve got it bad. Evan Sayat was right. http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-13014.html

Its a bloody shame that grown adults are unable to have their brain stuck in adolescence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61BhYPdIlao

- John L

Hey John eL
You made it to my block list very quick..
You were off topic.
I think it was your first post on my thread.
I do not allow personal attacks on my threads, especially if they are pointed my way.
Have fun with lumberjocks and wish the best of luck and highest skill as a woodworker, but you will never take another sh*t on my thread again.

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View Ghidrah's profile

Ghidrah

667 posts in 686 days


#15 posted 07-15-2015 02:20 AM

Nope no nerve to hit, both political systems have positive and negative aspects. I just stated my observation as put forth by your own fingers again which were antagonistic, insulting and show a lack of communication skills, handy to possess BTW when one is attempting to influence the view of another.

MarcusM and CharlieM also made attempts to point out your lack of tact and inability to form an argument and rebuttal based on facts as opposed to personal insults to the opposition. Here’s a wiki link, Your rigidity makes you the “impossible person” in step #2, as an unreasonable person CharlieM is wasting his time trying to reason with you.

http://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-Arguments-and-Debates

Good luck in your endeavors

-- I meant to do that!

showing 1 through 15 of 55 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com