Kafei

Biases and content control

Recommended Posts

Just now, beecee said:

:DAre you serious??? I mean really, that is totally wrong on at least two aspects. Please, go learn some science and stop dabbling in drug induced mystical experiences, to re-enforce your bias. 

This research I've referenced is science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kafei said:

The Perennial philosophy was the conclusion of the research.

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

gplusd54c67d1645dfc2b1347f427234d8231eeebaa8e.png

You mean you haven't grasped any of this.

I never said anything about conspiracy. This research is getting out there whether you'd like to admit it or not.

I read it the first time. Posting it over and over again won;t make it so, it will only get you banned, irrespective of what it's supposed to mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I never said anything about conspiracy. This research is getting out there whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Conspiracy is all you have to justify and support your ridiculous claims. And again while the research may trickle out to a limited few, your misinterpretation /s will be lost forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rangerx said:

I read it the first time. Posting it over and over again won;t make it so, it will only get you banned, irrespective of what it's supposed to mean.

And you constantly denying it won't make it false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kafei said:

I've posted many links throughout a couple of threads, but the MODs close the threads, and tell me not to post links to the science that's been done. Go figure.

Oh JFCOAPS

I wrote to you in a PM "You need to post summaries if you rely on links. Discussion must be possible without clicking the link."

I gave you a link to the guidelines, and told you section 2, number 7, which reads (the most relevant section is bolded)

"Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned."

I also told you "And if you reply in the open thread by just pointing people to videos or papers, i.e. not actually discussing science in the thread, it too will be closed." And here you've gone and done it again.

In your OP you mention some books and outline the tenets of a philosophy. There is no f**king science there to support the claim of the thread. There is a plagiarized mention (and yes, it's plagiarism, which is against the rules) of a drug study and having mystical experiences. And then the links, but since you had not discussed any science supporting your thesis, the links are against the bolded part of the rule I quoted above. You never explain how this philosophy and the drug provided evidence of the existence of God.

As I pointed out to you before, people taking a drug and having some experience is science. But you did not entitle your post referencing the effects of psilocybin. You claimed evidence for the existence of God. Which you admitted was bogus in another thread —

Quote

I've already explained, it won't be exclaimed so crassly as "Science demonstrates the existence of God,"

except that you did, in fact, do this very thing. 

You were also told not to bring this up again. That makes this soapboxing, another rules violation. (rule 2.8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.