FAC395-Scary nukes

gaiaAA ProperGander Morrislike this

With Ab, Napoleon, Justsayindude, Phil Blanks, Misom, Notsofreemason, Mahatma Coat, John Adams, JamesM, Rochello, Contrarious, John le Bon, Gaia,.

Can anyone else rile up a room like John Le Bon? Listen in and find out..

Two videos come to mind when I listen to John LeBon and no John this is not a personal attack..

A full synopsis is needed. Please contribute your thoughts below in comments.

26 thoughts on “FAC395-Scary nukes

  1. UnrealUNreal

    Misom, thanks for your email and the interest in my research.

    Listening back to the audiochat i’d like to clarify that i’ve merely abandoned the Discord Server — and i really didn’t think it would be worth being mentioned on the AC.

    Discord is a new part of the Fakeologist “ecosystem” and while i do find the audio recording capabilities much better on this platform, the text-discussions have failed to convince me that Discord is great for alternative research in text-form. In my experience it turned out to be time-consuming and confrontational. Quarrelling over research with individuals who either haven’t read the articles published on the Fakeologist EGI blog or lack intellectual honesty makes me feel more like wastig time than actually engaging with new research – which is why i joined Fakeologist in the first place.

    Leaving the “Discordian” side of Fakeologist does not of equate with me leaving the Fakeologist site, blogs or forum nevertheless. I do appreciate dialogue in correct and knowledgeable terms which in my case Discord did not provide.

    Concerning @Gaia you seem to mistake my participation on the IFER’s forum in 2015 with the ‘Wild Heretic’ board where there are no “Unreal’s” and where i’ve never posted. Also, even though i have previously posted on Cluesforum, i never really did so regularly nor extensively and it’s been awhile since i followed their work closely.

    Link to the IFER’s forum debacle :
    Unreal works hard, gets banned

  2. Justsayin DudeJustsayin Dude

    Kevin Costner Dances with Wolves

    Jon Le Bon Dances with Words

    Jon explained to me directly in that audio that to attack someone’s argumentation methodology is to attack the person themselves.

    Hmmm. I’ve listened to Jon Le Bon for years delighting in his ability to attack the argumentation techniques of others by way of logical analysis. Indeed every single time he cites “Ad Hominen” it is an attack upon the argumentation technique – if valid, a fair one.

    In his comment below, he attacks argumentation methodology – hmmm.

    Some people are like mist. When they depart, the clarity improves.

    We had a great chat.

    Before Jon arrived.

    After Jon left.

    It was a great day for word twisting, the day that Jon came back.

    1. John le BonJohn le Bon

      Thanks for leaving this comment. It seems I could have made my position on this particular matter more clear, so allow me to attempt to do so here.

      “Jon explained to me directly in that audio that to attack someone’s argumentation methodology is to attack the person themselves.”

      I do not believe that this is a fair reflection of what I said.

      Consider one definition of ‘ad hominem’

      Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

      Around 3h26m, your words were:

      “Phil was talking about your argumentation technique and not you at all”.

      How do you distinguish between a person’s ‘argumentation technique’ and the person themselves? No criticism was made of the substance of my argument, it was merely condemned for being ‘nihilistic’. When I asked what was meant by that term, it was suggested that ‘I have no beliefs’. This is patently absurd, and was quickly refuted. Moreover, to suggest that I have ‘no beliefs’ is clearly to focus on my attributes rather than the argument itself.

      Ergo this criticism of my ‘argumentation technique’ is — by definition — an ad hominem.

      My fault here was using the term ‘personal attack’ synonymously with ‘ad hominem’, which may have clouded the point I was trying to convey. This call helped me in a number of ways, and one of them is that I will now be more careful to use the term ‘ad hominem’ rather than ‘personal attack’, in order to make myself more clear.

      By the way, what even is/was my ‘argumentation technique’ during the call? I had simply been scrutinising Phil’s evidence (and pointing out that the lack of sufficient evidence for his claim).

      Is that my ‘argumentation technique’? Asking for evidence, and pointing out when the evidence provided does not actually support the claim being made?

      I was attempting to focus on the evidence Phil presented (specifically the image of the words with the arrows).

      Phil (and others) wanted to focus on my ‘argumentation technique’ which Phil and others claimed to be ‘nihilistic’.

      This is to focus on me rather than on the evidence.

      Shortly after the words quoted above, you speculated about ‘what would have happened’ if I had put forward evidence and Phil had criticised it.

      Again, you were focused on me, rather than the evidence, and not only that, but your focus on me included baseless speculation about ‘what would have happened’ if your hypothetical scenario had taken place — the most obvious problem being that it had not.

      Then when I pointed out that several people in the call had made blatant personal attacks, e.g. ‘John always does this, John always does this’, you then said “that’s a pretty darn accurate observation”, thereby implicitly supporting the very personal attacks you claimed had not taken place.

      It is a shame that we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot here. I hold no animosity towards yourself or anybody else in the call, and wish you nothing but peace and prosperity now and into the future.

      Cheers.

      1. Phil Blanks (Zero Zeros)

        How do you distinguish between a person’s ‘argumentation technique’ and the person themselves? No criticism was made of the substance of my argument, it was merely condemned for being ‘nihilistic’. When I asked what was meant by that term, it was suggested that ‘I have no beliefs’. This is patently absurd, and was quickly refuted. Moreover, to suggest that I have ‘no beliefs’ is clearly to focus on my attributes rather than the argument itself.

        Please use the active voice, JLB.
        www.wikihow.com…

        “it was merely condemned for being ‘nihilistic’” doesn’t say who said what; Gaia said that.

        “I asked what was meant by that term”
        from which speaker? I gave you my definition twice and you didn’t respond. Mason also pointed this out for you a third time. Do you have any response about how well it applies?

        “was quickly refuted”
        by who

        “Moreover, to suggest that I have ‘no beliefs’ is clearly to focus on my attributes rather than the argument itself.”
        It’s a point about anyone who asks questions recursively and when asked why they asked a question does not say what they believe and why, nor what evidence they have to find fault in the ongoing dialogue which then undermines it.

        My fault here was using the term ‘personal attack’ synonymously with ‘ad hominem’, which may have clouded the point I was trying to convey. This call helped me in a number of ways, and one of them is that I will now be more careful to use the term ‘ad hominem’ rather than ‘personal attack’, in order to make myself more clear.

        What’s the difference? I don’t speak Latin, so please respond in English.

        By the way, what even is/was my ‘argumentation technique’ during the call?

        “derailing” fits as a name that sums up a lot of the different questions you asked and replies you gave.
        en.wiktionary.org…
        tvtropes.org…

        Do you have any evidence to support that as a good approach to make a fruitful dialogue?

        I similarly hold no animosity towards your character or anybody in the call, and wish you nothing but peace and prosperity now and into the future.

        Cheers.

      2. Justsayin DudeJustsayin Dude

        Dear John,

        Thank you for your blessing. I too hold no animosity towards you, and will reciprocate at the end. That said, I am willing to attempt to pull you towards logical consistency.

        “Jon explained to me directly in that audio that to attack someone’s argumentation methodology is to attack the person themselves.”

        I do not believe that this is a fair reflection of what I said.

        This is followed by an explanation of ad hominem, then this

        Ergo this criticism of my ‘argumentation technique’ is — by definition — an ad hominem.
        Phil (and others) wanted to focus on my ‘argumentation technique’…This is to focus on me rather than on the evidence.

        John, you of all people have often and repeatedly spoken of how lucky you were to be trained in logic – of how it should be taught in schools – of how tragic it is that most people do not understand logic.

        The study of logical fallacies is precisely the study of how to identify, and call out fallacious argumentation technique.

        Ergo, by your own definition, to identify a logically fallacious argument is a personal attack on the arguer – something I, and anyone else who has listened to you over the years has heard you do over, over and over again.

        You can not have your cake and eat it too. You can’t consistently nail people on their argumentation technique then call foul when the torch is applied to you. That is hypocrisy.

        Calling it hypocrisy is not an ad hominem, it is an accurate statement IF what is said above is true, and I believe it to be so.

        You wrote “My fault here was using the term ‘personal attack’ synonymously with ‘ad hominem’, which may have clouded the point I was trying to convey. ” and followed it with this “you then said “that’s a pretty darn accurate observation”, thereby implicitly supporting the very personal attacks you claimed had not taken place.”

        It seems you did not manage to split the definition long enough to finish your response.

        When I said “that’s a pretty darned accurate observation” I meant it, and stand by it. It is pattern recognition. Modus operandi. At the end of the day, it is a familiar pattern of behaviour, a familiar effect on the conversation, and a familiar argumentation technique, from you.

        Maybe always is too strong. It could be changed for John almost always does this. Then I would stand behind that statement 100% until such time as you change your methodology.

        Observations of facts are not ad hominem. If someone lies constantly, calling them a liar is NOT an ad hominem. It is an observation of fact. To use that to discredit a new argument that they present would be fallacious, as each argument must be analysed on it’s own merits.

        Indeed, while it is fine to ask to site sources for evidence, your attack on Phil’s evidence is based on the Genetic fallacy.

        You also complained that my hypothetical scenario was, well, um, hypothetical.

        Well, duh.

        I agree, my hypothetical scenario was hypothetical.

        To boil it all down John, you specialise in picking apart argumentation technique. That is fine. I applaud it if used well, by anyone.

        So don’t cry and moan, trying to walk the Teflon road claiming that no one is allowed to do that to you, while trying to label it logically fallacious, which is in and of itself an attack on the argumentation technique of the ones you are moaning about i.e. if it is true of them it is true of you.

        Be consistent.

        Now, it is the second time you have signed off to me with a blessing, and I appreciate it.

        I harbour no ill will towards you, and wish you the best.

        Cheers

      1. xileffilex

        Don’t make me laugh any more than I did through much of ep 395, misom, I was rolling around on the floor at times. John was p…ing all over you all and you kept on coming back for more,

        Back on topic one day, perhaps, exposing linguistic fakery one language group at a time?

        1. ab Post author

          It’s hard for Misom to get some of the nuances of sarcasm and irony due to English being her xxth language. You do very well overall Misom and look forward to your Unreal interview. X had a good point in wanting to primary source that shack.

  3. Fayemisom

    I understand that John le Bon is actually not trying to discuss with others to influence them and let himself be influenced by them. He rather purely intents to create content in which he poses as the one who speaks the most by saying nothing. That is an abusive tactic but i guess, unfortunately, there are a lot of people who would pay for it.

      1. Fayemisom

        Did not mean here, Ab, but the content which John creates for his own website, for which as he said in this chat, he is going to use parts of that discussion which he deconstructed (on purpose) by saying nothing. Besides that, paying is not the only problem with abusivneness.

        1. gaiagaia

          In the discussion we had about the deterioration of the English, John used the red herring fallacy. We were discussing how English changed in the last 50 years and not for the better. Then he stepped in with “how do we even know where the English language comes from?” and the discussion deteriorated (the irony) from that point on.

          If you’re addressing a change over the last 50 years, it is irrelevant where it comes from hundreds of years ago.

          If today the quality of paper is less than 50 years ago, you can steer the discussion away by asking “where does paper come from”, but that doesn’t change anything to the observation that the quality of paper is deteriorating.

          John, I hope you take the comments of the others in and learn from it. You are an intelligent guy and I do not think you mean to derail discussions, but if you are true to yourself and especially philosophy and logic, please recognize your own fallacies too, not just those of others.

          1. John le BonJohn le Bon

            John, I hope you take the comments of the others in and learn from it.

            I am constantly listening and learning. As I explained in my original comment in this comment section, I got a lot out of this call and consider myself better for the experience. It is a shame that others left the call with such animosity and resentment towards me, but perhaps in time these feelings will subside.

            There is no apparent argument/disagreement about whether or not the regular use of English among the masses has deteriorated over the past fifty years. We all seem to be in agreement. Therefore it is baseless to suggest that I employed any fallacy (red herring or otherwise) in regards to this matter: I agree with this claim and explicitly stated as much during the call.

            Most of us also seem(ed) to agree that we don’t even know where English comes from, or how it was developed, or how long it has been in use. The only apparent dissenter to this notion was Phil, and it was from this juncture that the conversation devolved.

            Is the question of where English came from relevant to the conversation of where English is going? I would suggest that the answer is obviously ‘yes’, but I can also see why others might disagree.

            Is the question of who is responsible for the development/spread of English relevant to the question of who is responsible for its degradation? Again I would say ‘yes’ and again I can understand that others might disagree.

            This is the kind of conversation we might have engaged in, had we not gotten sidetracked by the disagreement over whether or not ‘linguists’ (with their pictures featuring arrows and words) know where English came from.

            For my own part in that sidetrack I take full responsibility, and will be more careful in future to try to avoid any part in such a side-tracking.

            1. Phil Blanks (Zero Zeros)

              > There is no apparent argument/disagreement about whether or not the regular use of English among the masses has deteriorated over the past fifty years

              We weren’t talking about if it had. We were talking about it. So I can see another “argumentation technique”, splitting the focus to its basic assumption and oppose it by its negation. I guess the point is to make it look complete and to then steer to another topic, like origins.

              I would have liked to dialogue about the degradation, instead of seeing you derail it. But since it would help to get a better grasp on how to have effective and respectful dialogues in order to do that, I hope we can see this as a good step forward. Would you agree, John?

              en.wikipedia.org…
              (More on derailing in my earlier comment)

              > Is the question of where English came from relevant to the conversation of where English is going? I would suggest that the answer is ‘yes’

              Why?

              > Is the question of who is responsible for the development/spread of English relevant to the question of who is responsible for its degradation? Again I would say ‘yes

              Why?


              Language is a great gift for humanity. I feel grateful to have a chance to speak with you and other men and women with interest in The Human Endeavour.

              Cheers.

    1. John le BonJohn le Bon

      “(JLB) rather purely intents to create content in which he poses as the one who speaks the most by saying nothing.”

      It is disappointing to learn that you see me this way. My own view of your contributions to recent Fakeologist audiochats are quite the opposite, and I have appreciated your involvement with Ab’s site.

      You may not be aware that I have in fact produced literally hundreds of videos, dozens of articles, and dozens of podcasts, covering a range of topics. To suggest that I ‘say nothing’ seems an invalid criticism, given the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

      I would also suggest that by pointing out when others are basing their beliefs/claims on no/poor evidence, I am in fact ‘saying something’ rather important.

      After all, if you believed or claimed something to be true, but which was not actually supported by evidence, would you not want somebody to take the time to point it out to you?

      I have enjoyed the few audiochats I have listened to in which you were involved, and will continue to consider the ideas and points you raise, without bias, regardless of your personal statements about myself or my work. I hold no animosity or ill-will towards you regardless of your apparent views about me.

      Cheers.

  4. due2romney

    Some very pertinent points made by all bar one,Whoever it was that said even a five year old(child) when asking why why why is actually seeking answers jlb was not.Not so Freemason and James who calmly and cooly persevered to get an intelligent or even reasonable response whilst under attack from johns circular nonsense allowed john to hoist himself on his own petard.I would suggest that you go back and listen again to the podcast jlb from 10mnts before you entered because unfortunately for you it is on the record and has exposed your circular reasoning logic whatever you want to call it.Would of been a great after party ; ) .

    1. notsofreemason

      We did have an excellent “after party” in room 11 with John Adams doing his impression of Jones and James doing his Ferzer. Great laughs had by all!

  5. Phil Blanks (Zero Zeros)

    We have a dialogue about language drift, sociolinguistics, linguistics, and the dumbing down of English with acronymy and stupid pictures replacing words (Emojis).

    Then John the bad (guy) derails it by
    * saying he doesn’t understand and it doesn’t matter because he won’t understand or study any works in the field
    * using the passive voice
    * asking closed ended questions
    * offering no examples to back up his points
    * proposing possibilities without offering any reason for others to consider the possibility
    * making character attacks / calling others’ points about relevant info character attacks
    * asking questions with infinite recursion
    * using circular logic founded in doubt and doubt about doubt. No beliefs.

    1. John le BonJohn le Bon

      It is a shame that we got off on the wrong foot. It is also a shame that this has been compounded by your decision to misrepresent me in your comment here. I suspect you may be capable of much better than this.

      I hold no ill-will or animosity towards you as a result of the call; in fact I am thankful for your input because I feel as though I personally benefited from the call.

      My suspicion is that many (perhaps most) Fakeologists share my skepticism towards the official story of the English language and its history. Perhaps in time this may be fertile ground for future conversations.

      Given that the typical Fakeologist communicates in English not just here but in their day-to-day life, the question of what we do (and do not) know about English (where it came from, when it came into being, who was responsible for its development/spread, etc) it seems a rather important topic to consider and discuss.

      If you would like to share any evidence you might have to support your claim that ‘those who study these things’ (i.e. ‘linguists’) know where English comes from, I would be more than happy to inspect it.

      In the meantime, I will continue to suggest that a picture from mentalfloss-dot-com featuring words and arrows does not sufficiently support your claim. This is just my own opinion, and others might in fact be quite convinced by the image.

      Until we chat again I wish you nothing but happiness and vitality.

      1. Phil Blanks (Zero Zeros)

        > I wish you nothing but happiness and vitality.

        Thank you John. I appreciate that and sincerely wish you happiness and vitality also.

  6. John le BonJohn le Bon

    Another Fakeologist audiochat, another illuminating discussion. I came away with a few new ideas and insights and for that I am thankful.

    It is comforting to believe that humans are generally intelligent and thoughtful, and it certainly is nice to imagine that those who frequent the various ‘alternative’/’conspiracy’/’truth’ (ACT) outlets are genuinely interested in learning and improving their understanding of reality.

    Of course, the evidence says that this is simply not the case. As Dale Carnegie rightly pointed out:

    “When dealing with people let us remember that we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.”

    The more educated or knowledgeable a man believes himself to be, the more offended he becomes when it is pointed out to him that his beliefs are based on evidence which is either unverified or fallacious. He takes this critique of his evidence as a criticism of his person, and he responds in kind.

    People can say whatever they want about me, but none of it ultimately matters. What does matter — and is pertinent to the topic of whether or not the changing of the English language is a lamentable thing — is the fact that none of us actually know where our language comes from.

    We don’t know how old it is, how it got here, or who was responsible for its development.

    This is, to a tiny fraction of the people who may read these words, a big deal. Much bigger than whether or not certain people like a man they have never met.

    It can certainly be confronting when one first begins to think about our lack of knowledge concerning the history of our own language (and indeed our society). In our vanity we like to imagine, even on a ‘subconscious’ level, that we know where we came from — or, if we don’t know, that the experts (who ‘study these things’) do.

    As evidenced by this audiochat, such appeals to consensus and appeals to authority do not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

    I asked a simple question of one particular interlocutor during the call: ‘How long does one need to study theology before he is within his rights to doubt or question the legitimacy of the bible’. If calm and not on the defensive, I suspect that the individual in question may have been able to answer honestly: one does not need to study theology in order to be able to doubt or question the legitimacy of the bible.

    The parallel being made here is obvious — so obvious that the question went unanswered, for an honest answer to the question would have, in one fell swoop, undermined the line of argument which had been directed my way in the half hour or so leading up to the question.

    It does not pain me in any way to say that I do not have the foggiest clue how old the English language is, where it came from, who developed it. In fact it is liberating to be so honest about my lack of knowledge. As we have seen, this honesty and forthrightness can be highly offensive to those who still believe — who still want to believe — that they do know. And I understand their pain.

    I suppose one of my many flaws is that I sometimes forget that I have had a relatively long time now to come to terms with the consequences of what I am pointing out. Perhaps this call represents the very first time Phil has ever had his faith in the establishment’s historical narrative challenged. Perhaps it is the first time somebody has asked him to present evidence to support his belief that ‘those who study linguistics’ know where our language comes from. If so, then his response is in fact entirely understandable. This can all be rather difficult at first, and I ought to bear that in mind.

    The question is, if one must risks being called names and constantly interrupted merely for asking that others present evidence to support their claims, is the the skeptical exercise thus futile in such an environment? I would say, ‘no’. Over time I have been contacted by many individuals who have informed me that they disliked me at first, they thought I was ‘this’, they thought I was ‘that’, but after some time realised that their initial impression was misguided. They realised that, as offensive as it may come across at first, my skeptical inquiries are in fact benevolent, thought-provoking and ultimately of value to those truly concerned with trying to better understand this thing we call reality.

    There were some nice people in the call and it is a shame that the conversation could not remain focused on the evidence and logic rather than on me. Whether this is my failing, or the fault of those who wanted to focus on me rather than on the evidence and the logic, will be a judgement for the listener to make.

    As always, thanks to Ab for facilitating these interactions. They are invaluable to me as I try to better understand myself, this reality, and these creatures we call humans.

    1. due2romney

      You love to tap dance through those word salads don’t you jlb,the simple facts are the audio was discussing the origins of the English language using Germanic and other languages till you arrived and then no official sources were(apparently) allowed to be used HUH including this one suggested by Phil…(wont post Samuel Johnsons English linguistic dictionary which you insisted was an appeal to authority so after unsuccessfully trying to switch the subject to Theology and the bible as you knew nothing of the origins of the English language(Suprise Suprise Suprise)yet you absolutely refused to join or allow the subject to be discussed until you left in a huff as you were not able to derail the subject or take over the audio…If im wrong Refute me oh wise one.

  7. gaiagaia

    John Le Bon came across as very Molyneuxesque.

    Both philosophers are good speakers when they are on their own ground, but turn into unpleasant, pedantic and obnoxious people when they have to function in a group of similarly intelligent people.

    But of course, if any founded criticism is shoved under “ad hominem” (personal attack), they can never be wrong.

    We had a great offline chat in the other room afterwards. Lots of laughter and a pleasant environment.

Leave a Reply