Outplayz

How does a person "handle" negative thoughts well? Is it by becoming dispassionate about them?

That is one way. Give me examples of negative thoughts and i'll tell you how i deal with them. I can't really think of any right now. That in itself is another reason why they don't bother me. My mind is truly always blank. If it's not i'm thinking of situations and philosophical concepts. But i've practiced being present a lot. Not in the past not in the future. Just always present. So, when i don't have any present thoughts, i let me thoughts just blank out and don't pay attention to them. I've noticed the negative thoughts that bug the most are those that you can't do anything about and are not true by being in the past or the future and not having happened. I stay away from those ones, but everything else, yeah... i guess dispassionate is a good way to describe it. 

So no there is very little room for agnosticism or even a moderately neutral view. He's as hardcore atheist as it gets. Easy to see in his replies. 

there are very few Oriental women that I found attractive, the straight hair and moon faces just don't do it for me generally speaking.

the blacks only dating sites exclude on skin color.....but that's ok (insert excuses and justifications here)

so you like the black and Indian women that look white, sure I get it LOL j/k

 I generally don't find fat chicks appealing

oh and no bald chicks, if you are into that, good for you, it ain't my thang.

For the sake of argument, assume that someone doesn't discriminate based on race except in one area: dating. Is that racist?

Heck yeah it's racist. I use to say i don't date any blacks or Indians, but i soon found out there are a lot of blacks and a lot of Indians. I have a particular taste when it comes to looks that certain races have a lot more of than others, but guess what, so do the above races. Very, very few of them, but they do have it. So, for me to say i cannot be attracted to "any" of that race is based on racism. Whatever type of look you like... you will find within said race. If you are still not attracted, it's probably bc of racism. 

No. The ones who do that appear popular but are statistically not the actual popular ones. Alpha-types are known for the popularity and their ability to bully well, this is totally irrelevant to their moral compass and how they use their capacity to dominate others in overt manners.

The most popular kids are the Deltas and Lambdas, always.

It's really quite simple dude: Only fools believe something is true when they don't KNOW it's true. End of story.

What the hell does this even mean? Only fools? So a person that thought the world is round when everyone was saying flat was a fool? A person that believed we could fly was a fool? At every point in human history... people that suspected things "could be" true are the ones that have progressed humanity. It's this strong belief that something can be true that is an awesome implication of our minds. If you are referring to believing it's 100% true without any sort of evidence at all to suspect it... i would agree. But there is more than enough evidence to suspect spirituality. To believe 100% the platform you have is the truth is foolish. But to suspect, which is the extent of what i am talking about, is not foolish at all. Your one sentence to me makes no sense considering that is what i'm talking about. It seems like a C&P you arbitrarily sent that likely is meant for religious people... i am in no way religious nor do i hold 100% belief in any one platform. I have certain platforms i believe to be the most likely ... but this isn't about that. I personally need a reason to even start trying to imagine a platform that would make sense... my reason to even going there is bc i would say there is sufficient evidence to give me a go on that leap. To suspect there is some sort of spirituality is not illogical nor is it foolish. 

I am not, despite the misconception of some, a dictator. People are free to disagree with me, and to do so publicly and harshly. As the one wielding power, it is my duty to not just exercise that power as I see best, but to provide others wide latitude to criticize those decisions. The freedom to criticize is the root essence of political liberty.

I'm personally glad you can moderate in such a way that a clear troll account isn't something you'll jump to conclusions and just punish without the proper steps afforded to real accounts. I think you're doing a better job for what it's worth. I may in the future disagree with a decision, but as of now i am seeing the mod team get their acts together more and more. Keep up the good work.

When you say "Queen Elizabeth" ... do you mean Elizabeth Bathory? I so hope you do ;p She's my favorite queen of horrors. 

A lack of an explanation does not serve as an explanation, which is essentially what your entire argument relies on.

"I can't come up with a better explanation, so god musta done it."

Your entire argument relies on one gigantic fallacy brother. Your argument fails.

Have you ever heard of schizophrenia? 

A hole in a tree could be "suggestive evidence" of a giant(such as Sasquatch) sodomizing a tree. Or, it could be evidence that someone shot the tree with a cannon. Or it could be evidence that a laser was misfired and hit the tree.

That's a good analogy but only applies at a certain point, so it doesn't directly make sense. The evidence of "experiences" is suggestive at a certain point, but what happens to get you to that point is a head scratcher. For instance, if someone sees an apparition that communicates to them that they will be in a car accident next week... that is not something you have to wonder about what you saw. You saw something, but which spiritual platform can answer what you saw would be the suggestive part. 

There are many spiritual experiences of this nature. Hearing a voice say you can heal someone and touching them and healing them, hearing a voice say don't go your usual route bc you'll get in trouble and you do when you don't heed the warning, asking questions and getting corresponding sounds to your questions from something that's not there, asking something that's not there to spin a necklace to the right and then to the left and it does it, etc. All of which above are spiritual experiences i've had. But lets not even count mine. I've heard a guy tell me that a random person in another state came up to him and told him to tell his mom not to go on a trip she had been planning. She said she was overwhelmed with a bad feeling so she had to say something; admitting it was weird for her too bc she's never felt this. The person was an atheist and didn't think anything of it. His mom went on a trip a week later that she had planned and was hit head on by a drunk driver. Etc. I can find a lot of these types of examples, experiences that are like mine and others. 

Now, it suggestive in that we have no clue which spiritual platform can be responsible. We don't know if it's angels, demons, jins, gods, etc. That part isn't clear. But, the experiences people have are pretty clear in that they are pointing towards something of the spiritual nature. We can rule out, some times, natural explanations. And really, there is only a few natural explanations all of which is a cop out in my opinion. Bc all you can say is that the person is deluded or suffered from some kind of delusion. But that still doesn't answer the frequency in which they happen and to how many, most of the time, non-deluded people. I suffer from no mental illnesses' that would create delusion. Even if i did, it's curious how i only get episodes that are very specific and spiritual in nature. 

So, you can say it's suggestive... but, it's not completely suggestive, only at a point it is. And what i'm saying is that it's enough to suspect spiritual platforms but not enough to believe. I think i am being as fair as i can be. Especially since i have personally had profound experiences, i still say suspect. I should be saying i 100% believe... but, you're right at that point in that the suggestive element to these experiences aren't enough for proof or iron clad belief.  

Excuse me but bish is obviously the queen. Where's this "my queen" stuff comin' from. I am like... the court jester in your crosshairs or something. Let's be accurate. 

Not speaking to this particular case, but in general, lying to win a debate is not bannable. It might be an aggravating factor in some cases, but it is not bannable unless it violates some element of the COC.

Okay that's reasonable. Thanks for making that clear. 

Not wanting to put words in her mouth, but I’m pretty sure the ban was for a the pretty outrageous personal attack - which happened to take the form of a lie. That’s what I took from her replies on the previous page. I think other people took that to mean that the issue was the lie, rather than the attack.

They were also adding into it the lying to win the debate. So, i'm just trying to make sure that isn't part of the bannable issue bc if it is i find that to be ridiculous. But, what you're talking about that they're saying i think is 100% punishment worthy. It's not cool to make malicious stuff up about people and pass it off as truth to assassinate their character... that's not right in any scenario. So i hope that's the focus of the ban... but, only that part. Not the lying to win a debate part.