Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight
-
@NotShanalotte said in Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight:
@lisan-al-gaib I've already had an issue trying to get through to you in our last interaction. If I move a topic, it's not a moral action, it's a mechanical one. The topic is clearly about diet and the OP did not bait, you started it. I'm well aware of the facts you mention but that doesn't change that it isn't off-topic.
No one mentioned Ray either. In fact, if we're trying to make tenuous, far-reaching connections, Ray admired men like Lenin and Marx whose actions and/or beliefs are responsible for some of the greatest atrocities against mankind.
Finally, since I must, telling someone to end their miserable life is against the rules. If you edit your post to remove it and apologize, that'll be the end of it. If not, I will be obligated to ban you.
You're confused, you were just wrong about our last interaction. You implied that non-bioenergetic ideas are not allowed, because you are dogmatic and believe that bioenergetic ideas are the solution to absolutely everything.
You're wrong, the name of the post is that "Muhammad Pbuh, The original peater?", part of his argument is the characteristics of Muhammad in the Muslim lore, from what i have Seen Ray peat does not promote pedophilia, according to the Muslim lore Muhammad is a pedophile, so no, Muhammad is not the "original Peater" according to the Muslim lore.
my comment is absolutely relevant and not off topic.Did Ray Peat use the word "admiration" for Lenin and Marx, did you ever see Ray Peat say somewhere that he admired a pedophile knowing that person was a pedophile?
What rules is that against specifically? I didn't threaten him, And there are non-violent ways of ending one's own existence
-
@lisan-al-gaib said in Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight:
Did Ray Peat use the word "admiration" for Lenin and Marx,
He wasn't really fond of any sort of emotionally wrought language like that, but you know quite little about Ray if you think he didn't. They also were not 'responsible for some of the worst atrocities'. That's a very historically ignorant statement.
-
@lisan-al-gaib
Your personal attacks are noted. Recall that everyone except you understood my write-up. I suggest introspection.Our admin addresses your point specifically here. To your credit, I hadn't included the linked example, which I added to my pinned post. However, now you know and I expect compliance. Remove the offending material from your post, or be banned per the rules.
Per the original topic, you're arguing semantics. Your point isn't even a bad one about his actions if his diet was so good and bioenergetic, but you started a fight, not a discussion. That's why I took action.
Ray did do/say such things, use bioenergetic.life and it should come up. He also admired Stalin. Ray's claim is that Stalin particularly was falsely maligned.
The greater idea is that discussion is allowed regardless of "baggage." To apply the standard you seem to want would be impossible to do fairly.
"Bear...Seek...Seek...Lest."
-
@CO3 Your objection is noted.
Tone-policing will get you nowhere btw. Your energy would be better spent, especially in the past, not taking bait and getting into slapfights.
Keep in mind I don't need to do this, I could have banned al gaib immediately and haven't despite their belligerent attitude. It would be wise for you to not get into the weeds again.
Here Ray mentions a fungus engineered by the West, which I don't disbelieve. But OTOH he says for Trotsky, the sources are gone/been suppressed but on related points he says to check the sources.*
*This is a common problem for him. Someone on the old forum tried to find a book on Stalin that Ray had mentioned and either couldn't find it or thought it might not even exist. I empathize with Ray's view, but if there's nothing left, that's how it is. I'm not alone in saying I cannot be persuaded by "trust me bro" even from someone like Ray Peat.
If you can find these sources, and heck, do a small persuasive write-up it would be a big boon to the forum. I'd read it, check your sources and if it checks out pin that bad boy in a heartbeat.
That said, it's an uphill battle in other ways. "Not everything was (Stalin/Lenin/whomever)'s fault" isn't a comprehensive argument. So they never had real power? Every single thing from within the USSR was falsified, altered or otherwise tampered with conspiratorially or from outside it? And then you must still deal with Pol Pot and other non-Soviet revolutionaries, the other half of my point, which you also discount. Bioenergetic.life returns no results for "pol pot" so good luck there.
IOW you must also get around "that wasn't real Communism" if you can successfully defend Stalin and Lenin. Thus your argument must be ironclad to extend it further. That's an incredibly high standard.
The point was simply that "baggage" need not come up, but if this is the hill you want to defend, go ahead. It's a monumental task, much greater than taking a snipe at me.
-
@NotShanalotte i must have subconsciously chosen goat because i actually refrained myself earlier from disparaging the other gentleman based on their name leading me to believe they are of arabic origin. im not being facetious when i think i just picked goat randomly. anyways your comment is noted
-
@noodlecat59 It's no big deal, I just have to be neutral as I can be. These things happen, which is why I wanted to let you know without taking any moderation actions.
-
@NotShanalotte You are a "peaty moderator" but you still bring arguments like "Stalin and Lenin did atrocities" which are just common sense of the mainstream view.
A moderator should be "moderating", so not giving his personal ideas to argument decisions.
A lot of ideas are questionable and Lisan has some great points. -
@Razvan I remind you that there is no ruling from the admin that I must try to mediate. Zero. So my teaching example was a miss, it happens. If you've been following this situation, you should see that lisan al gaib should have been banned before I "made my mistake" about Stalin and friends due to telling another user to kill themself. Under your direction, al gaib would not have the chance to edit their message, they only have the chance because it's my personal discretion at play. This is despite their belligerence as well.
As for Stalin and friends, I perceive, think and act. I'm not convinced when Ray's best on that is "trust me bro." He was truly great in so many ways, but I don't recall him asking us to be slavishly devoted to his personal ideas. Not to even get into Lenin's own writings, or other revolutionaries like Pol Pot, whom doesn't even come up on a bioenergetic.life search.
Do you recall this post from February, Razvan? Ray warned against such things, acetylcholine use. Would you like me to ban you for that post, because you used an example I don't like? Something anti-Peat? I don't, but if I adopt your standard I must ban you.
I could shift my neutrality to your standards, for users such as you and others of the same mind. Because my examples might not suit your fancy, I'll save you/them the trouble and go straight for moderation. If I skip diplomacy, as you call it, my "personal ideas to argument decisions," that must be the result.
As for CO3 and his previous slapfighting partner, rather than ThinPicking stepping into that situation, according to the standard you desire Razvan, @CO3 would have been temp banned at minimum to stop taking the bait all the time. And yes, I'd have temp banned Norwegian_Mugabe as well for trolling. If either had resumed crapping up threads after that, I would have banned both. Both had been slapfighting and ruining threads for a long time.
Without the "personal ideas" element, all 4 of you would be banned: al gaib for threats, you for an "anti-Peat" post, and CO3 and N_M for spam/slapfighting.
-
@NotShanalotte said in Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight:
@Razvan I remind you that there is no ruling from the admin that I must try to mediate. Zero. So my teaching example was a miss, it happens. If you've been following this situation, you should see that lisan al gaib should have been banned before I "made my mistake" about Stalin and friends due to telling another user to kill themself. Under your direction, al gaib would not have the chance to edit their message, they only have the chance because it's my personal discretion at play. This is despite their belligerence as well.
As for Stalin and friends, I perceive, think and act. I'm not convinced when Ray's best on that is "trust me bro." He was truly great in so many ways, but I don't recall him asking us to be slavishly devoted to his personal ideas. Not to even get into Lenin's own writings, or other revolutionaries like Pol Pot, whom doesn't even come up on a bioenergetic.life search.
Do you recall this post from February, Razvan? Ray warned against such things, acetylcholine use. Would you like me to ban you for that post, because you used an example I don't like? Something anti-Peat? I don't, but if I adopt your standard I must ban you.
I could shift my neutrality to your standards, for users such as you and others of the same mind. Because my examples might not suit your fancy, I'll save you/them the trouble and go straight for moderation. If I skip diplomacy, as you call it, my "personal ideas to argument decisions," that must be the result.
As for CO3 and his previous slapfighting partner, rather than ThinPicking stepping into that situation, according to the standard you desire Razvan, @CO3 would have been temp banned at minimum to stop taking the bait all the time. And yes, I'd have temp banned Norwegian_Mugabe as well for trolling. If either had resumed crapping up threads after that, I would have banned both. Both had been slapfighting and ruining threads for a long time.
Without the "personal ideas" element, all 4 of you would be banned: al gaib for threats, you for an "anti-Peat" post, and CO3 and N_M for spam/slapfighting.
You're completely wrong, first of all you invented that I "threatened" someone, I didn't threaten anyone, so it's false, suggesting to someone that he end his life in case he thinks that pedophilia is based, that's not a threat.
Secondly, ending one's life is not necessarily violent, so I didn't incite violence or threaten violence, so that's wrong.
Thirdly medical aid in dying is a thing in many countries on earth, many states in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, Asia, whether it's in the law, or whether it's ancestral traditions, so to suggest that a person has reached a stage of suffering where they can benefit from ending their life in the event that they considered it "based" to marry a 6 year old and "consume the marriage" when they are 9 years old, is neither a threat, nor an incitement to violence, nor an incitement to self harm.
0 personal attacks, everything I've said so far is legit, whether it's about you or the other guy, Implying that only bioenergetic ideas are allowed on the forum, because "bioenergetic is a whole paradigm" is dogmatism, you imply that nothing new, good, or better can come outside your idea of the "bioenergetic whole paradigm".
I didn't cause any slap fight, I specified that according to Muslim lore Muhammad married a 6 year old child, and I asked if that's peaty, the other answered something nonsensical, I explained why it was nonsensical, he answered something dumb again, I made a suggestion and stopped answering.
-
@lisan-al-gaib I didn't make the rule, and I showed you since you hadn't seen it. I admitted it wasn't in my write-up and should have been.
You didn't participate in the thread. Period. The topic was diet. User VehmicJuryman has made since made the same point as you but without the antics. If you had edited your post, you could have learned from his example.
That time has passed, seeing as you've doubled down and claim you've done nothing wrong. Unfortunately you don't have DarksydePhil's luck.
Normally I'd temporarily ban you for 48 and let you cool off. However, the rule is explicit. It no longer matters about the Muhammed topic and your reaction.
I'm really only writing all this out for other users. I'll always extend my hand, even if my efforts aren't always 100% on point, even for users who may dislike me.
As for the other two users who want to argue, I'm locking this thread as it's served its purpose. I'd hate to move to my old way of doing things by chat with no transparency, but I may have to make that a case-by-case basis now.
-
@NotShanalotte said in Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight:
@lisan-al-gaib I didn't make the rule, and I showed you since you hadn't seen it. I admitted it wasn't in my write-up and should have been.
You didn't participate in the thread. Period. The topic was diet. User VehmicJuryman has made since made the same point as you but without the antics. If you had edited your post, you could have learned from his example.
That time has passed, seeing as you've doubled down and claim you've done nothing wrong. Unfortunately you don't have DarksydePhil's luck.
Normally I'd temporarily ban you for 48 and let you cool off. However, the rule is explicit. It no longer matters about the Muhammed topic and your reaction.
I'm really only writing all this out for other users. I'll always extend my hand, even if my efforts aren't always 100% on point, even for users who may dislike me.
As for the other two users who want to argue, I'm locking this thread as it's served its purpose. I'd hate to move to my old way of doing things by chat with no transparency, but I may have to make that a case-by-case basis now.
@Andrewㅤ said in Muhammad Pbuh, The original peater?:
Various sources present a description of Muhammad. He was above average in height, with a sturdy frame and wide chest. His hair, thick, black and curly. His teeth were well-spaced and pearly white. His face was described as intelligent, with a broad forehead. He had exceptionally clear glowing skin, and a sharp jawline. He is described to have a delightful natural scent which emanates from his pure being. He would walk very quickly and radiated high energy as if the earth was made easy for him.
You're either very confused or biased.
The thread is "Muhammad pbuh the original Peater", the argument is not only what he eats, it's also the characteristics he has, so the OP makes an association between Muhammad's diet and his characteristics in the Muslim lore, in the Muslim lore Muhammad married a 6 year old girl and had relations with her when she was 9, It must not be left out, because one of the arguments implicit in the OP is that Muhammad's "peaty" diet contributes to his characteristics, do you think that having sex with 9 year old girls is a resultant tendency of a "peaty" diet, or an argument to support why Muhammad is the "original Peater"?
Do you read? The user VehmicJuryman argued that Muhammad having sex slaves reduced his stress (positive association), he said nothing about the fact that he had relations with a 9 year old girl according to Muslim lore. So his comment has nothing to do with mine, it's a bad comment from which there's nothing to learn apartsi if you think sexual slavery is acceptable.
The rest is false or there IS nothing to answer everything has been said above.
-
lisan al gaib is now banned, their refusal to follow the rule in question being the reason: telling others to kill themselves is explicitly against the rules.
I have locked this thread. For the users listed below, if they so choose, resolution will now be one-on-one.
@CO3, if you want resolution on your point, you must send me a chat. Realize that I have no connection to Ray and don't need to believe anything he said. Nothing. Though, I don't mean my essay post towards you to put you down: if you can calmly convince me, I'm all ears.
Your issue was personal though, and that will never change how I moderate. Consider in the future that if you mean to take anything you don't like on this forum as a personal attack, which is what you did here, I'll strongly consider moderation action, not mediation.
**@Razvan **, you should get a clear picture having read the last post that the human element is required for fair moderation, to appreciate nuance, motive, and so on. A machine that would not allow disagreement with Ray would have already banned you for the post I screenshotted, consider that my "personal ideas" are what spares you from your own standard .
As for the post I screenshotted, see here and refer to times Ray compared stress and hypothyroidism to aging. I didn't really make that clear previously. To recommend choline to someone under stress would fall under this, hence my point to you.
I look forward to a nice, calm, well written message that will change my outlook on how I handled this situation, Razvan. As I told CO3, you not liking that I disagree with Ray counts for nothing. It may shock you that my healing has come more form a Barnes-like approach. And a bit of Selye too. Lastly, likewise that if I see you taking something personally that doesn't affect you, I'll skip the mediation step, the "personal ideas" of mine.
-
N NotShanalotte locked this topic on
