Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

(Notice that in my interactions with you that you have used this as an excuse to ignore some of the points I made, by simply stating that I will not interact with you until you address all the points I have made, or something to that effect.)

What you call an excuse there is what I call me implicitly confessing that I might be wrong about you being a dishonest and bad faith actor and me giving you an opportunity to clarify yourself (by the act of explaining the facts in your own way, where you can show me why I misunderstood our interactions and why im wrong about you being bad faith).

You characterization of that whole thing is me running away from answering your question (even though its super clear that I answered a bunch of your questions just before that  - again more questions in more detail that Leo will ever do to you related to the cult topic and its also very clear that I was willing to acknowledge which question I do and do not have an answer for [for instance your question about the indepdent standard]).

So given all of those facts, everyone can decide whether your characterization about me running away from your question is a plausble one or not.

 

51 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I did not imply that all his points might be invalid.

I implied that one of his points might be invalid.

That's all.

The implication that I draw from you answer is that you pretended that only the insta point was related and relevant to establishing Leo having psychotic tendencies.

Again to me , this is not about me having an issue with you not directly responding to all the non-insta bullet points, my issue is your characterization of the arguments that are given.

The argument contained 3 elements, not just one.

You picked out the insta one and then you said that that is a low blow - but whether it is a low blow or not, even that is dependent on you looking at the situation in a bigger context (for instance , in light of the other two bullet points), because the consideration of more facts can change your view about the insta point.

Im not sure what your point was about the insta point being a low blow - if not to point out that that point alone is not sufficient to categorize someone as having psychotic tendencies. - because if that was your point, then again you strawmanned Carl, because Carl never made the claim that his insta point is sufficient to establish that.

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

35 minutes ago, zurew said:

The implication that I draw from you answer is that you pretended that only the insta point was related and relevant to establishing Leo having psychotic tendencies.

Incorrect.

I will say it now clearly for the last time.

I only implied that one of his points might be invalid with regards to the psychotic symptom issue.

I did not imply that his other points with regards to this issue were invalid.

If it makes you happy to believe in your mind that I am a bad faith actor, then go ahead.

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I only implied that one of his points might be invalid with regards to the psychotic symptom issue.

When you say "invalid" there, do you mean this:

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

Im not sure what your point was about the insta point being a low blow - if not to point out that that point alone is not sufficient to categorize someone as having psychotic tendencies.

Because again, if thats what you meant by it being invalid , then thats a strawman, because that never was the argument.

If you mean something other than that, then go ahead clarify what you mean by "invalid" and clarify why you think it was a low blow.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Im not sure what your point was about the insta point being a low blow

I meant that referencing a suicidal moment in someone's life, as part of building your case for potential psychotic tendencies, is a low blow.

(suicidal moments can be messy.)

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I meant that referencing a suicidal moment in someone's life, as part of building your case for potential psychotic tendencies, is a low blow.

(suicidal moments can be messy.)

But this is why I told you that considering more facts can overwrite your interpretation of the insta fact.

Your case of it being a low blow is reliant on you thinking that the right explanation of the insta fact is that it was just a one off suicidal moment in someone's life.

if you consider the possibility that there are alternative explanations for the insta fact, then you open up the possibility of it not necessarily being a low blow.

 

But also not sure what kind of  different data points would you be even be looking  - if not for instances, where the person is acting out or where he is very mentally low.

For instance, do you think a psychiatrist is engaging in a low blow, when he thinks that suicidal moments are relevant to and they raise the probability of that person being psychotic?

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

But this is why I told you that considering more facts can overwrite your interpretation of the insta fact.

Your case of it being a low blow is reliant on you thinking that the right explanation of the insta fact is that it was just a one off suicidal moment in someone's life.

if you consider the possibility that there are alternative explanations for the insta fact, then you open up the possibility of it not necessarily being a low blow.

Okay bro. I responded to Carl's specific comment in the moment.

Still, using an absolute low point in someone's life, like a suicidal moment, to make your point, is not cool.

Suicidal moments by their very nature are messy.

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Okay bro. I responded to Carl's specific comment in the moment.

Still, using an absolute low point in someone's life, like a suicidal moment, to make your point, is not cool.

Suicidal moments by their very nature are messy.

Okay bro.

Do you think a psychiatrist is engaging in a low blow, when he thinks that suicidal moments are relevant to and they raise the probability of that person being psychotic?

[Wilhelm44]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Okay bro.

Do you think a psychiatrist is engaging in a low blow, when he thinks that suicidal moments are relevant to and they raise the probability of that person being psychotic?

Experiencing suicidal moments, at one point or another, is probably part of most people's journey, who are on a spiritual path. But I could be wrong.

Edited 2 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Experiencing suicidal moments is probably part of most people's journey, who are on a spiritual path. But I could be wrong.

That doesnt answer my question though.

I can grant you that premise about the spiritual path while maintain that it is also a probability raising data point for the psychosis hypothesis as well (because the insta fact is expected under both hypotheses).

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

That doesnt answer my question though.

I can grant you that premise about the spiritual path while maintain that it is also a probability raising data point for the psychosis hypothesis as well (because the insta fact is expected under both hypotheses).

Has Leo been evaluated by a psychiatrist who said he had psychotic tendencies ?

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Has Leo been evaluated by a psychiatrist who said he had psychotic tendencies ?

I dont know, but I still dont know whats your direct anwer to this question:

20 minutes ago, zurew said:

Do you think a psychiatrist is engaging in a low blow, when he thinks that suicidal moments are relevant to and they raise the probability of that person being psychotic?

 

[Wilhelm44]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont know, but I still dont know whats your direct anwer to this question:

 

A psychiatrist's office would be a different setting, wouldn't it ?

Is Carl a psychiatrist ?

Plus that means that most of us here are potentially psychotic, if we have had suicidal moments.

A psychiatrist would think that an awake person is crazy to begin with.

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Wilhelm44

[Rigel]

Would a cult leader allow half his mods to accuse him of running a cult out in public for a month straight?

It seems to me that a cult leader would want to snuff out that stuff in the bud.

You guys acting like him saying this isn’t a cult is some kind of mind manipulation tactic rather than the normal response of anyone called out for running a cult when they are not.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Rigel you could flip this (to play devils advocate) and claim no one has been kicked out / banned for accusations precisely BECAUSE it would cement the claim of this being a cult. 

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

That would be a different setting, wouldn't it ?

That still doesnt answer my question.

Notice that you deliberately dodged directly giving an answer to my question multiple times now. (again this raises the probability of you being a dishonest and bad faith actor under my radar once again).

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Rigel said:

Would a cult leader allow half his mods to accuse him of running a cult out in public for a month straight?

It seems to me that a cult leader would want to snuff out that stuff in the bud.

You guys acting like him saying this isn’t a cult is some kind of mind manipulation tactic rather than the normal response of anyone called out for running a cult when they are not.

This is why you should read through the additional facts so that you can see in light of all the facts which hypothesis is more probable.

But also, you can disagree with the cult label and the operating definition and still descriptively recognize the bad behavior and the manipulative tactics.

I provided a bunch of links in my post there, you can read through all the relevant links and the relevant threads in detail and you can get to you own conclusion.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

That still doesnt answer my question.

Notice that you deliberately dodged directly giving an answer to my question multiple times now. (again this raises the probability of you being a dishonest and bad faith actor under my radar once again).

Kinda like you refusing to answer my original question yesterday.

Okay bro, just to make you happy, lets say it wasn't a low blow.

Are you able to acknowledge that it's kind of a mute point then, considering that pretty much everyone on the spiritual path go through suicidal moments at one point or another.  (Hands up everyone here who have never experienced a single suicidal moment in their life ?)

Lets see if you are able to acknowledge that point.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Kinda like you refusing to answer my original question yesterday.

Okay bro, just to make you happy, lets say it wasn't a low blow.

Are you able to acknowledge that it's kind of a mute point then, considering that pretty much everyone on the spiritual path go through suicidal moments at one point or another.  (Hands up everyone here who have never experienced a single suicidal moment in their life ?)

Lets see if you are able to acknowledge that point.

This relies on the assumption it's the spiritual path that causes suicidal moments. There could be many other reasons for suicidal ideation. And in fact, I could possibly make a claim that most suicidal ideation is caused by other factors.

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Are you able to acknowledge that it's kind of a mute point then, considering that pretty much everyone on the spiritual path go through suicidal moments at one point or another.  (Hands up everyone here who have never experienced a single suicidal moment in their life ?)

Its not a mute point, because its not granted that the insta fact is explained by your spiritual path point.

It might be that the insta stuff happened because Leo was going through the spiritual path and that he hit a necessarily low that comes with a spiritual path, but the fact that thats a possible explanation, doesnt mean that that is the actual explanation (and you know , this is where it becomes relevant again to consider additional facts in order to find which hypothesis is a more probable explanation for the insta fact).

 

10 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Lets see if you are able to acknowledge that point.

Pretending again as if I have a hard time acknowledging points and its not you, who squirm around everything and only respond highly selectively to things.

10 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Kinda like you refusing to answer my original question yesterday.

Already addressed your stupid accusation:

2 hours ago, zurew said:

What you call an excuse there is what I call me implicitly confessing that I might be wrong about you being a dishonest and bad faith actor and me giving you an opportunity to clarify yourself (by the act of explaining the facts in your own way, where you can show me why I misunderstood our interactions and why im wrong about you being bad faith).

You characterization of that whole thing is me running away from answering your question (even though its super clear that I answered a bunch of your questions just before that  - again more questions in more detail that Leo will ever do to you related to the cult topic and its also very clear that I was willing to acknowledge which question I do and do not have an answer for [for instance your question about the indepdent standard]).

So given all of those facts, everyone can decide whether your characterization about me running away from your question is a plausble one or not.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

this is where it becomes relevant again to consider additional facts in order to find which hypothesis is a more probable explanation for the insta fact).

What additional facts do you have that relate directly to that suicidal moment ?