Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said:

The way marketing works. If something is high in supply. Those selling will undercut one another. The highest seller WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SELL when their produce can be purchased for cheaper.

And it can get even cheaper since hemp is a plant that will grow anywhere in the world, and people can even grow it in their garden if they want. Oil and precious medals and other rare materials, are rare and cannot simply be found anywhere.  

If hemp is cheap and widely used, it wouldn't be as profitable for any business to sell these products. It isn't the case now, cause hemp itself isn't farmed like it used to be and it is expensive.

What's to stop people from making it abundant again though if it grows in any conditions? 

 It doesn't grow in any condition, it simply can be grown anywhere in the world. This doesn't mean winter, nor does it mean it only grows in a certain climate,  like mangos.

The masses in general aren't too concerned with what goods are made of.

Currently hemp farmers are looking to sell at higher prices.

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat summarized it quite well.

To clarify, I did not say that people are correct if they post counter arguments to their claims. I said that they are likely incorrect if they have only looked into arguments that support their beliefs.

That's moronic though. This isn't theory, nor is it a hypothesis.

Demonstrating an understanding of the counter arguments and evidence to the contrary provides some rationale that the person is not simply looking for evidence to support their foregone conclusions but instead formed their opinion from a neutral, unbiased standpoint. I'm saying this is a minimal requirement for rational people to take you seriously, and you haven't demonstrated even that.

Dude. From the time you came here, you were sucking TC's balls, then ended up redacting your whole agreeing with him, cause there wasn't anything for you to agree with. You're the one that fails at minimal requirements here.

It's not about sides, it's about methodology.

He is not posing as someone who knows, but rather as a skeptic towards your conclusions, as rather than present his own reasons as to why you are wrong he is instead looking at how you came to this conclusion. Through his and my only posing questions and suspicions we are not posing as experts, but rather as researchers at most in the process of finding answers. 

AppleGenius said:

Perhaps one of the most evident perks of crafting a thorough literature review is the fact that you will establish your credibility with the reader, and in doing so, you become an authority on the topic.

Through your posting the answer it invites the room for it to be questioned. If it were a truly finite answer that you possessed, then there'd be answers within your work to dissuade them, rather than presumed character assessments and motives of those present as to why they why they disagree with you. 

In short, if you want people to believe you, then you need to know how to be credible. 

As for your claim that it's just me saying this: Not just me; it's all of science. For example, you may check here what the typical summary paragraph for Nature is:
https://www.nature.com/documents/nature-summary-paragraph.pdf
Notice, in particular, the introduction to the field, the more detailed background, problem formulation in terms of the broader field, tying your results to the general context, and the broader perspective. Your abstract ticks off only light blue and green boxes.

You claimed "everyone here is disagreeing with me", I said no it's just you. Now you're carrying with this irrelevant bullshit.

Facts are independent of the Bandwagon, that would be a fallacy. A single person can be correct within a room of stubborn, incorrect people.

This however is more about checking how you came to that conclusion to test it's validity. 


The rest of your post is effectively you ripping into his character rather than sticking to topic, so I'm going to ignore it for now. It's literally just insults so that you don't have to take his skepticism more seriously, ironically with you parroting at him that he's lazy over how he effectively called you lazy first (when you didn't look up counter-arguments), followed by "NO U". 

 I answered all of his questions already. Some of them I had to answer twice. Notably why hemp isn't cheap, and why the oil industry isn't interested in selling hemp instead. (I also mentioned how oil is used for thousands of other things, including creating clothing material.)

Here's reality. Not everyone is going to spring into action and format their claims for you. You may resent that, but if you're really interested in the subject, you can find out yourself.

Otherwise waiting around for a week to be served tells a lot about you.

It doesn't matter to me if you or Legga want to claim how I appear. It really doesn't. The plant speaks for itself.... Widespread production of hemp did cease, over a stigma. Yes it did. I know some will doubt it, unless they can make sense of opposing claims. Hemp is a pending threat to most of the trash we buy today, and if production never ceased we'd be buying products that doesn't fuck up the environment, while being of higher quality.

Maninist said: 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said:

The way marketing works. If something is high in supply. Those selling will undercut one another. The highest seller WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SELL when their produce can be purchased for cheaper.

And it can get even cheaper since hemp is a plant that will grow anywhere in the world, and people can even grow it in their garden if they want. Oil and precious medals and other rare materials, are rare and cannot simply be found anywhere.  

If hemp is cheap and widely used, it wouldn't be as profitable for any business to sell these products. It isn't the case now, cause hemp itself isn't farmed like it used to be and it is expensive.

What's to stop people from making it abundant again though if it grows in any conditions? 

 It doesn't grow in any condition, it simply can be grown anywhere in the world. This doesn't mean winter, nor does it mean it only grows in a certain climate,  like mangos.

The masses in general aren't too concerned with what goods are made of.

Currently hemp farmers are looking to sell at higher prices.

Okay, but what's to stop something like that from becoming abundant again when it can be grown in someone's garden? 

Maninist said: 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat summarized it quite well.

To clarify, I did not say that people are correct if they post counter arguments to their claims. I said that they are likely incorrect if they have only looked into arguments that support their beliefs.

That's moronic though. This isn't theory, nor is it a hypothesis.

Demonstrating an understanding of the counter arguments and evidence to the contrary provides some rationale that the person is not simply looking for evidence to support their foregone conclusions but instead formed their opinion from a neutral, unbiased standpoint. I'm saying this is a minimal requirement for rational people to take you seriously, and you haven't demonstrated even that.

Dude. From the time you came here, you were sucking TC's balls, then ended up redacting your whole agreeing with him, cause there wasn't anything for you to agree with. You're the one that fails at minimal requirements here.

It's not about sides, it's about methodology.

He is not posing as someone who knows, but rather as a skeptic towards your conclusions, as rather than present his own reasons as to why you are wrong he is instead looking at how you came to this conclusion. Through his and my only posing questions and suspicions we are not posing as experts, but rather as researchers at most in the process of finding answers. 

AppleGenius said:

Perhaps one of the most evident perks of crafting a thorough literature review is the fact that you will establish your credibility with the reader, and in doing so, you become an authority on the topic.

Through your posting the answer it invites the room for it to be questioned. If it were a truly finite answer that you possessed, then there'd be answers within your work to dissuade them, rather than presumed character assessments and motives of those present as to why they why they disagree with you. 

In short, if you want people to believe you, then you need to know how to be credible. 

As for your claim that it's just me saying this: Not just me; it's all of science. For example, you may check here what the typical summary paragraph for Nature is:
https://www.nature.com/documents/nature-summary-paragraph.pdf
Notice, in particular, the introduction to the field, the more detailed background, problem formulation in terms of the broader field, tying your results to the general context, and the broader perspective. Your abstract ticks off only light blue and green boxes.

You claimed "everyone here is disagreeing with me", I said no it's just you. Now you're carrying with this irrelevant bullshit.

Facts are independent of the Bandwagon, that would be a fallacy. A single person can be correct within a room of stubborn, incorrect people.

This however is more about checking how you came to that conclusion to test it's validity. 


The rest of your post is effectively you ripping into his character rather than sticking to topic, so I'm going to ignore it for now. It's literally just insults so that you don't have to take his skepticism more seriously, ironically with you parroting at him that he's lazy over how he effectively called you lazy first (when you didn't look up counter-arguments), followed by "NO U". 

---

I answered all of his questions already. Some of them I had to answer twice. Notably why hemp isn't cheap, and why the oil industry isn't interested in selling hemp instead. (I also mentioned how oil is used for thousands of other things, including creating clothing material.)

Here's reality. Not everyone is going to spring into action and format their claims for you. You may resent that, but if you're really interested in the subject, you can find out yourself.

Then I don't have to take them as seriously over demonstrating a lack of reasoning and rigor, and I question why they spout the things they do if they don't actually want to have a conversation about it or otherwise appeal to those around them. It's kinda just yelling random things at empty space when you don't actually want to talk any further on it. 

Many will at least take in the other side's arguments so that they can debunk the opposition, while you'd rather just be like "Well I'm right and you're dumb for disagreeing with me". 

It doesn't matter to me if you or Legga want to claim how I appear. It really doesn't. The plant speaks for itself.... Widespread production of hemp did cease, over a stigma. Yes it did. I know some will doubt it, unless they can make sense of opposing claims. Hemp is a pending threat to most of the trash we buy today, and if production never ceased we'd be buying products that doesn't fuck up the environment, while being of higher quality.

The problem here is moreover how you have done nothing to test the validity of this information, instead only looking into things that support your claim. 

Why should you be taken seriously when you haven't even looked into the potential flaws in your own arguments? 

Then I don't have to take them as seriously over demonstrating a lack of reasoning and rigor, and I question why they spout the things they do if they don't actually want to have a conversation about it or otherwise appeal to those around them. It's kinda just yelling random things at empty space when you don't actually want to talk any further on it. 

Many will at least take in the other side's arguments so that they can debunk the opposition, while you'd rather just be like "Well I'm right and you're dumb for disagreeing with me". 

I answered your repetitive question. You're just adopting Leggas argument in more ways than responding for him now.

You've been waiting a long time to get me. So bad you've told lies about me, while unable to prove it.

Your so desperate, you'll tag team with anyone arguing agsinst me. Even though you yourself repeated what I said about big business and hemp, while Legga requires I go out of my way and write a book about something even you said.

It was then he redacted backing you.

I'm dealing with clowns in here.

It doesn't matter to me if you or Legga want to claim how I appear. It really doesn't. The plant speaks for itself.... Widespread production of hemp did cease, over a stigma. Yes it did. I know some will doubt it, unless they can make sense of opposing claims. Hemp is a pending threat to most of the trash we buy today, and if production never ceased we'd be buying products that doesn't fuck up the environment, while being of higher quality.

The problem here is moreover how you have done nothing to test the validity of this information, instead only looking into things that support your claim. 

Oh this is old knowledge.

Everytime I talk about things I know about, I'm not going to bring the counter argument, that's fucking dumb. Only people who request that are posers who act like intellectuals.

I've had wonderful conversations with scientists, and there was no stalling. "Oh you never said this and that and you never said it in this format so you're likely wrong" HA !

Some people are bound to mainstream. This isn't the big program on CNN, so.

Why should you be taken seriously when you haven't even looked into the potential flaws in your own arguments? 

 I'm still correct. You can be stuck wondering if I am, or you can learn.

You two can't learn from me though. As usual the conversation devolves into lol formalities not being set. 

You should know that I never intended to insult you, although perhaps I was quite direct in my criticism of the ideas you presented. I tend to be blunt sometimes. If I did insult you, it was unintentional.

With you telling me I'm sucking TC's balls, I'm idiotic, lazy, dumb, unintelligent, not an actual scientist, a clown, a sheep who follows 6 o'clock news, need to evolve like Inq and TC, I think it's a good time to recognize that this conversation will likely not result in something conducive. You should know that I'm not offended, as I understand how debate can sometimes become heated when personal views are at stake.

Anyway, all the best. It could've been an interesting discussion.

AppleGenius said: 

You should know that I never intended to insult you, although perhaps I was quite direct in my criticism of the ideas you presented. I tend to be blunt sometimes. If I did insult you, it was unintentional.

At the start you never made any sense. There was nothing there for you to agree with, and if anything going with TC means at best you'd be repeating what I said.

What am I supposed to think when that goes on ?

With you telling me I'm sucking TC's balls, I'm idiotic, lazy, dumb, unintelligent, not an actual scientist, a clown, a sheep who follows 6 o'clock news, need to evolve like Inq and TC, I think it's a good time to recognize that this conversation will likely not result in something conducive.

That's how you come across as. What did you start off with ? Again with TC. "Why now, and not yesterday, or not in the future from now"

That's question is what you ask a psychic.

Still the best I could do is drop the economical history of the boomer era. My answer wasn't good enough for TC and he sought something else, without really doing that either. You asked for something else TC never asked for, but your intro was sloppy, I wasn't going to respect you.

- The Burden of Proof is on you ..... Inq legit used to say that. TC used to say that. Me. If I have doubts, I go and check it out my damn self and bring it back. THAT, is progressive. Not expecting the one you're arguing with to submit to your wishes, especially when the one you're arguing with has been finding you dim from the beginning. 

Even Inq cut out the burden of proof thing. I brought his own R&D. I respect that, not urging someone to do it for you. I see the burden of proof argument as lazy and somewhat ignorant, especially when a week goes by and nothing came from you, just waiting. Sure you'll argue I never did what you wanted me to do, but I'm not obliged to when I find foolery in your output. 

I don't recall saying you're not a real scientist. I did mention twice that I've spoken with scientists and the conversation is direct. Everyone else I share information with, or those who share with me, DO NOT, bring counter arguments, unless it's we're trying to get to the bottom of some theory, or guesswork. In my 44 years I'll tell you, hardly anyone will bring counter arguments when they are talking about something, in this case I'm praising hemp. And no i never just learned about this yesterday. It's been decades.

You should know that I'm not offended, as I understand how debate can sometimes become heated when personal views are at stake.

I don't say anything as an insult. I genuinely mean what I said. If you're not offended then good. Don't expect the world to revolve around you and have people running around serving you your preferences. I did not confirm every bloody thing because I'm not writing a book here. You can look into whatever I said. You can even try to debunk it, though I don't see why you'd want to do that. Hemp is clearly everything I say it is, but not to everyone. TC in particular went as far as to saying he could make something worse with it. And while that maybe true, he never had anything in particular in mind. He was just pissing in the wind.

The amount of foolishness that came out of him. Then you come charging riding his ass for reasons you redact.

Anyway, all the best. It could've been an interesting discussion.

 If I weren't so annoyed with the two of you, maybe. We don't meet one another's standards. I want progressive conversation. Not accusations and burden of proof bullshit. Maybe you couldn't work with me if your life depending on it. As for me, doing things your way is a drag. It's like stalling on what to be or how to act and insufficiency nope.

That isn't even real to me because I know people who can hold a conversation with me. I wasn't born yesterday.

You're incorrect on several accounts, but I have no reason to continue when you make this about character assassination and argue in bad faith.

Have a great day.

AppleGenius said: 

You're incorrect on several accounts, but I have no reason to continue when you make this about character assassination and argue in bad faith.

Have a great day.

 lol I deny that.

And it was character assassination both of you. Hence you going with TC when the best he had to offer you is what I said, that you don't believe cause corporation doesn't admit it. What am I supposed to think ?

What cancelled hemp is a stigma. Otherwise it's better than cutting down trees to make scrap paper. And pretty much everything else.

You want to argue biofuel, but I said it isn't even practical before you even arrived here, plus oil is used for everything. Hemp is still better.

.

.

.

Hemp. The most useful plant in the world, As a material it's 2nd to none. It eats it's own carbon footprint, and the soil it grows on is left better thsn it was before. With 25,000 use cases, I couldn't even begin to scratch the surface. We can eat it too. Healthy stuff.

Alright.

Just as a final matter of curiosity, Spatial: Setting aside whether or not you feel this is a fair or accurate characterization of your stance, would you yourself be willing to debate someone who suggested that the burden of proof was on you for claims they made, and who stated it was unnecessary to establish credibility over the subject matter?

Would you yourself agree to debate under those conditions?

Again, setting aside whether or not this is a fair characterization of what you're doing and what would be required to `establish credibility,` just so you can answer the question directly without being worried about being misrepresented.