Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(FB 1552523847 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO PILPUL AS CRITICISM OF P-LAW/LOGIC 1) You did not make an argument as to demarcation – meaning you made no argument as to anything other than self opinion. 2) You have not stated any ideologies and certainly no methodologies, (there aren’t any) 3) You have not answered how one would solve the problem of limiting interpretation to application. 4) You misrepresented in your experience offered as evidence as other than an opinion. It is an experience if you describe it (“i don’t know i only know” but an opinion if you offer it as argument (“in my experience… therefore”). 5) You instead practiced one of the techniques of Pilpul (semitic invention of lying via justification via scriptural interpretation) by solving for a presumption of reasonableness (trustworthiness) as a means of baiting into hazard – which is the principle means of deception I am working to dutifully exterminate. 6) And if “in conclusion, I have no issue being held liable for what I say” then you are exactly the target audience, because you just demonstrated the problem of men who think they are honest when they are merely vehicles for the transmission and propagation of the very disease of the mind that travels under the pretense of religion: abrahamism: false promise, baiting in to hazard, pilpul to justify, critique to straw man and undermine, GRRSM to avoid, solving for pragmatism, or consent, or reasonableness rather than truth and reciprocity, and the culmination of all these techniques to profit from the incremental destruction of host civilizations. You are, in your confidence, evidence of the crime I wish to, and hopefully shall, prosecute, and the education I wish to introduce as the completion of the scientific method. So that no more such pretenses may be practiced upon this earth for eternity, and the dark age of the abrahamists – the cancer that has cost us two thousand years, will be finally left behind forever.

(FB 1552523847 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO PILPUL AS CRITICISM OF P-LAW/LOGIC 1) You did not make an argument as to demarcation – meaning you made no argument as to anything other than self opinion. 2) You have not stated any ideologies and certainly no methodologies, (there aren’t any) 3) You have not answered how one would solve the problem of limiting interpretation to application. 4) You misrepresented in your experience offered as evidence as other than an opinion. It is an experience if you describe it (“i don’t know i only know” but an opinion if you offer it as argument (“in my experience… therefore”). 5) You instead practiced one of the techniques of Pilpul (semitic invention of lying via justification via scriptural interpretation) by solving for a presumption of reasonableness (trustworthiness) as a means of baiting into hazard – which is the principle means of deception I am working to dutifully exterminate. 6) And if “in conclusion, I have no issue being held liable for what I say” then you are exactly the target audience, because you just demonstrated the problem of men who think they are honest when they are merely vehicles for the transmission and propagation of the very disease of the mind that travels under the pretense of religion: abrahamism: false promise, baiting in to hazard, pilpul to justify, critique to straw man and undermine, GRRSM to avoid, solving for pragmatism, or consent, or reasonableness rather than truth and reciprocity, and the culmination of all these techniques to profit from the incremental destruction of host civilizations. You are, in your confidence, evidence of the crime I wish to, and hopefully shall, prosecute, and the education I wish to introduce as the completion of the scientific method. So that no more such pretenses may be practiced upon this earth for eternity, and the dark age of the abrahamists – the cancer that has cost us two thousand years, will be finally left behind forever.