@FactVsReligion Great job on attacking his person, and you have failed to refute any of his argumentation. You seam to think that people cant have absolute truth? If that is the case? Are you absolutely sure?
Then it got too much work for him, so he threw it out the window, did next to nothing on it, and left me to do all the work. Then he tried to put his name first on the credit months later when it was complete. Whatever takes his fancy is what he does - you can't depend on him to consistently go in any direction for any longer than it pleases or suits him, and he will milk his current schtick for all its worth while he has it, before he gets a new one, when it is not to be discussed any longer.
If you like, Kevin squeezes everything he can get out of an image, or appearance that he creates, and then, when something else suits him better, totally jettisons that way of being for a totally different and even opposing and contradictory way of being. He's not consistent. He does whatever suits him better, while putting himself forward as above that kind of hypocritical person. I translated a book with him once and at the start he was full on into it, working hard as best he could every day
The fact that Kevin is so innately attuned to the travails of the most mundane of people, the kind who want to turn beautiful countryside where he lived for a decade into a world of concrete for example, speaks more to the fact that he is at their level rather than above them. He is also someone seeking the fulfillment of blind, long-standing primeval needs out of his own control, and beyond his ability even to really fathom. He understands that type well, because he is the same as them.
In a way Kevin has simple needs - some attention, however small, and whatever kind, means so much to him, while most men say "ba-humbug" or even recoil at it. This is I think why he portrays himself as someone with complex philosophical goals - it throws people off the scent of what he's really after - people who will enhance his feeling of being a fulfilled or "fixed" narcissist; something that is the very core of his life, so much so that many people around him don't even see it, its so deep.
doesn't mean that he's a worthless person. Just that he needs narcissistic supply, badly. Like a heroin addict needs a fix. Kevin's quite good at insights into the psychology of mundane people, strawmen if you like, but he lacks the ability needed for philosophy of the kind Weininger or Nietzsche wrote, and yet ironically, he believes himself to be at or above their level, with nothing to support that claim. Kevin is good at attacking easy targets, but not complex, multifaceted matters.
Even someone making claims that they are the wisest person on earth, a genius, on the same level as the greatest spritual thinkers in the world - such a claim needs to be backed up by serious evidence. If the evidence is non-existent, there is some kind of disorder there, if the person makes the claims over, in this case, their entire adult life (30 years) and has never had anything to back it up with. These behaviours are from someone urgently seeking narcissistic supply, and lying to get it.
for an official organisation, and when asked what you translated you were silent, they would have no choice but to dismiss you, because translators know how to use language, and silence isn't an explanation. Why can you not say what you translated, yet boast pridefully that you did such a large amount of work? Anyone whose translated anything would be flabbergasted at that inability to use language, the same tool you claim high skill in in two languages, to defend yourself on this matter.
..one term over another, or one way of representing an idea over another. A real translator would not turn into a deaf and dumb mute when asked what exactly he translated - in fact it would be totally the opposite, because he has to justifty why he did it that way, so he needs to articulate that firstly to himself, then to interested others or skeptics. You on the other hand, say nothing when asked for actual evidence of what you actually translated yourself. If you were an interpreter..
Kevin - In July, you wrote "I made contributions to every single sentence that was translated, and there would not be any sentence in the entire translation that is entirely your work. In addition, many of the sentences are mostly my work." You also wrote "I am directly responsible for at least half of the translation".
I replied "Can you provide any examples?". You did not offer any examples however, which is extremely unusual for translators, who can talk voluminously about why they chose
You might want to look up the Psychologist's fallacy. And the dimestore freud game. Do yourself a favor and leave the diagnosis to professionals. Behaviorism is somewhere on a fuzzy line between a science & pseudoscience.
@AlainG80 I can tell you that while I think it is dangerous to diagnose someone with mental illness, of any kind, and even for professionals, that doesn't mean that the most glaringly obvious of cases can't be accurately identified, more or less. In the enormous range of behaviours that characterise narcissism, the question for me is, does this person have enough of those traits, and are they strong enough in them? The condition is determinable for those who tick many of those boxes.
You can judge a single (set) behavior(s) but not a disorder from here.
Judging disorders from the limited data is a selection bias. In psychiatric clinics they have process psychiatrist who don't interact with the subject to prevent a number of biases. No longitudinal studies.
You also can't exclude Experimenter's or Expectation bias, Actor–observer bias, Trait ascription bias, Fundamental attribution error, Subjective validation, Observer-expectancy effect & Von Restorff effect.
@AlainG80 A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, rigid, scripted dialog, obsession with brand management, low level of actual achievements, flip-flopping on claims expediently, imperturbability, cycle of ideation (of the members of his cults) and devaluation (of others), personality cult, interpersonal exploitation. They don't make up a commonly found group of behaviours. If you have all of them, calling that person a narcissist is quite reasonable, if you can show a pattern of these behaviours.
As a Dutch person we are often accused of rigidity cultural calvinism. Can you tell the difference between rigidity and strong willpower. As for scripted dialog there's nothing wrong with that.
(Destructive) Narcissist is an ad hominem since it refers to someones identity instead of his behavior.
Someone might have destructive narcissistic traits, or that person might enjoy pro liberal conservative (objectivist) behavior. It's all relative. 1/2
Flip flopping might be interpreted as situational behavior. Expediently: or just target oriented. Imperturbability: maybe he doesn't value feelings and prefers rationale. Seems quite common under people with high testosterone levels and a certain political ideology. It all depends on your subjective point of view. As for the cult well you can blame that to the Goverments tax exemption in the U.S. 2/3
@AlainG80 Kevin was an avowed bachelor for his entire life until he was 38, when he began a four year relationship with a woman. To me, that's whimsical flip-flopping in the extreme - to profess contempt and disdain for something until you are almost 40 years old, then turn around and do exactly what you condemned for a period of almost half a decade. It's turns any idea of consistency of philosophy totally on its head. And four years is to long to categorise it as an experiment.
I'm unsure if he appreciates you divulging this kind of private information. Do you have a personal axe to grind? And I hope that you base your flip-flopping case on more than 1 instance, this example is not very convincing at all.
@AlainG80 You have far to much concern for Mr Solway I can assure you. If you had any substantial dealings with him, you'd later regret being an erstwhile supporter. My only issue is that Kevin should be held to account for what he says and does the same as anyone else. Because he's on a narcissistic trip for his whole life though, that's a mammoth task. In his world, whatever you do or say is fine so long as you get your narcissistic supply. Its bad for those who cross his path.
@AlainG80 The point I wanted to make about Kevin basing his image on celibacy and then taking a girlfriend for several years out of nowhere is that Kevin promotes himself as being something more than what he is. For the period that he was single (38 years) he pushes himself out there as a Christ like figure, above the emotional or sexual, in a philosophical realm etc and then he turns around when it suits him and centers his life around a woman who shares none of those aspirations for years.
@avidalocan As for interpersonal exploitation: point to antisocial or illegal behavior (depending on what you mean). You probably have no access to his beliefs & convictions and or values & drivers and therefore can't make any -ist claims. And you also haven't addressed my concerns about your own biases influencing your theories. Seems very common among certain testosterone and ambitiously driven people in a liberal & capitalistic environment like certain parts of the U.S. 3/3
@AlainG80 I think the fact that I met Kevin almost 17 years ago, and knew him fairly constantly for seven years, would actually be something that would compel me not to come to the same conclusion as someone who has never met him. However, the facts were so overwhelming, I had to eventually concur with the diagnosis in this video, ultimately because of a belief in honesty and truth, regardless of what it costs me. The only thing I haven't said is that just because he has these traits...
I don't object to ascribing traits or behaviors, they serve a valid purpose of correcting antisocial behavior. I just object to diagnosing disorders over the internet by non-professionals who don't understand the weak points of the DSM IV & V manual.
@AlainG80 It might be there now, but not for long: "As Charles Zanor reports in today’s Science Times, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — due out in 2013 and known as D.S.M.-5 — has eliminated five of the 10 personality disorders that are listed in the current edition. The best known of these is narcissistic personality disorder." - New York Times, November 29, 2010
Please have a look at that website it's the original site not a secondary source like yours. We will know by 2013 for sure. And DSMIV-TR is still active till 2013 so the point you make is mute.
@marsCubed When I translated Weininger, Kevin, who struggles to translate even the most basic German, boldly declared that his interpretation, based only on his own ideas as a non-German speaker, was more correct than mine, who spoke it, and a respected German dictionary. His explanation for that was "if I think it's right, it is." When I finished translating it, he then rushed out an introduction replete with the term "we" regardless of his total lack of contribution to it.
@avidalocan Everybody can be a miserable twat sometimes. however narcissistic personality turns to cheats all the time.
'Classically' it's a condition where a child is chastised & cynically put down. cutting snide remarks etc. to grow up with a sense of being unlovable failure.
Facing up to being a twat is unbearable as it means dealing with inner feelings, so it gets covered with self praise & little regard for others.
@marsCubed The only way to curtail this charlatan's damage to someone is if they have enough information before they get too involved with him, so my motivation is to nip it in the bud. Anyone who maintains involvement with one of these freaks gets burned to varying degrees. I wish I had someone to warn me before I got in too deep but unfortunately, forums weren't as vicious back in the late 90s as today. They should be - honesty is critical to protect people from narcissists.
@KevinSolway In order to contribute as a TRANSLATOR Kevin, because the credit says "Translated By" you have to have a high degree of proficiency in the language. If you don't you are a researcher, or assistant. Even Steven Burns, who translated the entire book, told me this. There is no doubt that you were a researcher and contributor to the English once translated. But your German skills aren't up to the level of a translator, which is an extremely challenging task. Translators are like doctors
@lairdshaw Good to his friends. I spent hundreds of hours, and almost a year of my life on a public domain dicitonary digitisation project. After 12 years of sharing the profits of it 50/50, he turns around after some internet posts he doesn't like and says he now gets 100% of it! You call that good to his friends or acquaintances? I can even send you a written agreement signed in March 2011 where he agrees to 50/50 as usual. You haven't seen what he's like when things aren't going his way yet.
@avidalocan I'm shocked that you lay implicit claim to a friendship with Kevin that he ought to have honoured. From what I understand, your attitude towards him became hostile long before this dictionary project became a bone of contention. "Some internet posts he doesn't like" - my understanding is that the content of those posts was persistently unkind and unpleasant: not exactly the posts of a "friend". I don't see why Kevin ought to honour a friendship that you implicitly disavowed.
@lairdshaw I'm shocked that you think I should spend hundreds of hours of hard work supplying Kevin with data for the program as a joint venture and then have it all go to providing him with a saleable product that I get NO share in simply because he doesn't consider me "a friend" or never did. You seem to put his judgements upon me above a person's legal rights as the product was a joint venture from the start and he is still selfishly and abusively using my work without paying me.
@avidalocan When you start a vendetta against someone, don't be surprised if they want to withdraw from pre-existing joint ventures with you. "Saleable"? You guys have barely made chump change out of it. Surely money can't be the real issue here. As for "selfishly and abusively using [your] work", I understand that Kevin has taken pains to fully replace your labour. If you're dissatisfied about your work going to waste without further reward, then do likewise and release a competing product.
@avidalocan Basically, it's your word against Kevin's, and all I know of you is what Kevin's told me and what I've seen of your posts on YouTube. If the dictionary was a commercially viable/successful project I might advise you to seek arbitration; as it is, I'd advise you to just let this drop and focus your time and energy on something more constructive. Take all of the negative energy you're putting into hating on Kevin and rechannel it into positive energy for a new, meaningful project.
You really are a first class dickhead. Even though it has been repeatedly explained to you that it is a logical fallacy to refer to what other people may believe, you continue to use exactly the same logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are you life. I can see why you have such an affinity with FactVsReligion's channel.
I've already told you that you are welcome to take your issues to court. The reason you don't is that you don't have a case.
@KevinSolway "Don't have a case" - so you signing a legally binding document in March this year saying all future sales of the product wil be split 50/50 is meaningless under the law? You make a few changes and suddenly its not a digitised public domain dictionary but a "totally different product"? Whose going to believe that apart from you and your followers?
@avidalocan I've known Kevin as an active neighbour and software collaborator for over four years, and I stand by my original comments - whilst he has his flaws, he's fundamentally of good character. I'm willing, though, to hear you out - if you really want me to look at these email correspondences then PM me and let's first establish exactly what it is that you're trying to prove to me. In the meantime, let's please drop this public discussion. Cheers.
If you read the comment again I simply said i understand the traits she is describing which present as narcissistic & i am not qualified to diagnose however i am a menatl health worker and have met a great deal of people with personality disorders in my personal & work life. hence the guy i dated fooled me for a very short amount of time & didn't get past the dating process.
@kevinsollaway. the man i met pretends to be 44yrs old & in reality is 50yrs old. he pretends to be a practising qualified therapist. both these things are checkable. his age is fake, he is not a registered therapist & the info he gave me about his ex-wife(age & stating that she had a personality disorder) are all fabrications which i have checked out & much more lies. its the grandiose way he talks led me to uncover his web of lies. on being found out he is a very abusive man.
@TheKhat88 I'm talking about the person that is talked about in this video - not the person you have met. What qualifies you to judge the person in this video? ESP?
@avidalocan As I've said, my new products are signficantly different. There are a great many differences, and not merely cosmetic. If you think there is an injustice then you should take it up in court. The reason you don't is that you don't have a case.
To show you all the changes I have made would require that I provide you with the source code to the software, and I definitely won't be doing that. As I've already said, if you think there is an injustice then you should take it to court. The reason you don't do it is that you don't have a case.
@KevinSolway What you mean is, prove it to you. But no-one can prove something to someone who refuses to listen to any of that proof, and/or who has a strong vested interest in ignoring that proof. And you do not represent the average person in terms of your ability to judge whether or not I have supplied proof that you are a charlatan - your general cognitive level is too poor to use as a model for the average person's intelligence. You often think you are right regardless of evidence.
@avidalocan That's bullshit, as I have not threatened to sell anything we have worked on. So you are straight-out lying. You should remove your stupid comments and lies out of decency - if you had any.
@avidalocan You said you would remove your comments, and I expect you to follow your word. That's the only reason I expect you to remove the comments. The new products I am releasing have nothing to do with you. I did not say my new products have only minor changes, but that any new product would require only minor changes since the content is public domain material. My new products are significantly different.
@avidalocan If you think there has been an injustice you should take it up in court. The reason you don't take it to court is that you don't have a case.
I know exactly what she is talking about as i just met one these guys, also pretending to have extensive knowledge & qualifications in philosophy,psychology,spirituality & design which where all false but gets him the attention & the constant flow of NSS sexual relationships on FB, dating sites etc that he requires to inflate his ego
@nmaheshp Academia and popular culture condemning Weininger as anti-women, anti-Jews etc is just a way of saying "This man speaks the truth." If you want spiritual and intellectual hollowness, keep kowtowing to academia and popular views, because you'll never run short of them there. Although I have more than a few grave misgivings about Kevin, his belief that Weininger was a genius is not one of them (not that this means I think he really understands him, but 10 points for trying).
"provide proof" that my followers are not intelligent
I recently read a post on some forum by David Quinn castigating someone for something and saying "it's what the nazis did". Has he ever heard of Reductio ad Hitlerum or Godwin's Law? Does he realise how much of a sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is, even when used seriously much less in his flippant and offhand style? Of course he doesn't, because he doesn't think about himself, as why should he when he's reached "perfection".
Hey Kevin, totally off topic but do you think Christopher Hitchens, possibly months away from death by cancer and in the throes of chemotherapy, has maybe thought "What the hell, if these God people are right, I don't want to die without trying." and perhaps prayed to the God he so vocally despises to save his life. I mean what's he got to lose right? Why not hedge his bets a little while he still can? It's a funny thing for someone like him to do but I sure bet he's thought of it a few times.
@avidalocan Whatever you do has an impact on the world around you - even if you try to keep it a secret. Cause and effect does not allow for anything to remain in isolation.
@KevinSolway Given that his impact on the world is likely to be limited to digital archives in the near future, I would hope he partakes of every possible means to maximise the chances of that not happening, even if those means were to go against his well-prosyletized beliefs. After all, dead men tell no tales.
@avidalocan They problem is that you need to provide *proof*. Your personal opinion is meaningless. Telling someone that they are a fool for using logical fallacies is not "abuse".
@KevinSolway There is a correlation between intelligence and following your beliefs or ideas. The more intelligent realise your ideas aren't great and move on, leaving you with a few average to low intelligence people who continue to follow those ideas. And even those people, when they get a bit older and wiser, stop subserviently following you. You refuse to even consider this because it would reveal that like them, you are of the same questionable intelligence, except they grew - you didn't.
@KevinSolway "opinions of people are your God" - says the man who just a few posts down insists that his ideas "are *exactly* the same truths as those spoken by the Buddha, Weininger, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche".
Why should you care if your ideas are same as them Kevin? Be your own man, Don't use those people as a crutch for your ideas. Those people are your God. Don't lean on them for support.
@KevinSolway For someone who proudly trumpets, on this very page " The truths that I speak are *exactly* the same truths as those spoken by the Buddha, Weininger, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and a great many others", you sure have some cheek to accuse me of worshipping other peoples' opinions.
I know you are going to say that it doesn't matter who agrees and who doesn't but I've never agreed with much of what you've ever said, so I've looked around to see if you convinced people more intelligent than me. In my opinion, you haven't done that. You believe you have, but I see those more intelligent people arguing against you, not with you, and the less intelligent meekly following you. That's my opinion, as I don't have the energy to pick it apart now. Too tedious and unrewarding.
@KevinSolway Something would be wrong indeed, because then I would be the only intelligent person who ever did agree with all of your ideas!! Everyone else who has (three people) weren't all that bright.
@KevinSolway Until something is discovered that we don't already know. Like why can't we understand Quantum Physics. When the reason for that is understood, all logical and philosophical truths could need to be changed to remain valid. If we met aliens from other planets, they may have discovered things we haven't - things which fill in the blanks on currently accepted forms of logical and philosophical truths. There are too many unknowns to make a rock solid judgement about anything.
@KevinSolway The only conclusion I can draw from why there aren't any people whose intellect I respect who believe in your truths, is that you cannot convince intelligent people. The second option is that all people except you, David Quinn, Dan Rowden and Kelly Jones are of an abysmally low intelligence, and cannot even comprehend what you are saying. I know that is what you actually believe, but I think you more people would have agreed with you by now than them if your truth was just that.
@avidalocan The truths that I speak are *exactly* the same truths as those spoken by the Buddha, Weininger, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and a great many others. But I've explained to you many times before that it doesn't matter one iota how many people believe something, even if you respect them. You keep making the same logical errors, over and over again. Try thinking for yourself.
@KevinSolway The Wikipedia definition I've been looking at is grossly deficient, if referring to one person's opinion is just as valid as referring to any number of people's opinions. That definition does not mention that at all, but focuses on "the majority" or "the largest group".
@avidalocan The Wikipedia article assumes that the reader will understand the reason *why* the beliefs of a majority are meaningless. The reason *why* is the fallacy of the "appeal to belief", which is mentioned at the top of the article.
The article also assumes that the reader will understand that "majorities" apply in groups of *all sizes*, including groups of one. In a group of one there is a majority of one.
@KevinSolway If you write an academic article, you might cite several people's opinions 95% of the time, because they support your argument, or you understand them the best, or they were the most articulate or meaningful to you. You're not saying that a majority have that opinion. You are selecting preferred sources to support an argument. Numerically, there could be 10 times as many people with the opposite or very different opinion, but that's irrelevant to the case you are putting forward.
Absolutely it's irrelevant. Philosophy is not science. This is something you don't understand. Science works by consensus, but philosophy is not about consensus.
Socrates doesn't say "Joe Bloggs agrees with me". He would rather kill himself first.
@KevinSolway What I meant was, in an academic paper, it's irrelevant to the case is say 98% of all people who wrote on the subject said A when the 2% said B and your argument is for B, It's like the reverse of appeal to the people. So when I present others and my own ideas about you, I don't care if the whole world worships you as a God - I'm putting forth one argument about you and supplying whatever evidence supports that.
ipso facto true. That is also a fallacy because a system of ideas that cannot be philosophically or by its own rules disproven, is not automatically proven correct by that very fact.
@KevinSolway I think you're skilled at presenting an image of yourself that appeals to some people from a distance but I definitely know that once you decide someone is less than human, which is virtually everyone to you, the way you deal with them would drive away all but the most slavish and dull. I'd be very surprised if the people who support your comments would do so had they experienced this directly. Until then, they live in a world of make-believe about what you really are.
From Schopenhauer's 'The Art of Controversy': ".....the universality of an opinion is no proof, nay, it is not even a probability, that the opinion is right. Those who maintain that it is so must assume that length of time deprives a universal opinion of its demonstrative force, as otherwise all the old errors which were once universally held to be true would have to be recalled and...
"a low opinion of musicians generally" - playing the obligatory "fill in the blanks" game with you, people might think that you only devalue musicians in particular, and have a high opinion of other artists or writers. The reality is, musicians are only one group in a cast of thousands that you disparage at any opportunity. The impression you create of having a particularly low opinion of one group is wrong - you have the same low opinion of everyone except yourself and your "truth".
That's obviously bullshit. I certainly don't disparage musicians when I'm enjoying their music. So you are simply making things up again.
I have a lower opinion of all people who do not seek the truth (including musicians) than people who do seek the truth. That is a logical necessity and won't surprise anyone. You will find that even FVR would have a lower opinion of all non-atheists than of atheists. It's exactly the same thing.
@KevinSolway So you don't think you are the kind of person who quickly finds fault, and verbalises your findings, with virtually everyone who pops up on the box or comes up in conversation?
@avidalocan I am the kind of person who can quickly find faults and virtues. I don't verbalize my findings unless I can be fairly certain of being correct.
@KevinSolway Well there must be a very small number of people with virtues out there because I didn't hear many pronouncements about them coming from you in several years. That's not an opinion, its just that I didn't hear any virtues, just vices.
@KevinSolway Except you didn't do much translating yourself - you asked others to do it, and got a couple of people. You haven't studied German enough to be able to do it yourself.
@avidalocan Also, I've never said or implied that I have a "particularly* low opinion of any one group, so you are mistaken or lying. I don't have a lower opinion of musicians than I do of Christians.
@KevinSolway That is true. It just seems that way perhaps to some people, but you have never singled out any group for a particularly harsh, or lenient judgement. It's just the way you belittle one group can look as if you have singled them out, but that's to do with the tone of your writing, not the actual statements, and different people would interpret that tone differently to some extent.
@avidalocan " It just seems that way perhaps to some people,"
Once again you are using the fallacy of the appeal to opinion (formally known as "ad populum"). You still haven't learned not to use this fallacy. Please try to understand that it doesn't matter a hoot what "seems to some people" - no matter how many people there are.
@KevinSolway I'm just saying what the tone of your writing comes across as to me, and what I believe would be a reasonable opinion. I'm not trying to present a philosophical point. This is an experiental point, from my own point of view, as well as other peoples' opinions of you I might cite. Experience may be subjective, but I don't know enough about philosophy generally to argue with your points, so it's all I can use. Also, you believe that because your points can't be argued, they are .....
@avidalocan "you believe that because your points can't be argued"
I've *never* said that my points can't be argued. This is something you have made up. Every one of my points can be argued, and I do argue every one of them.
@KevinSolway I'm pretty sure you once said your points can't be logically refuted or something like that. That's what I meant by "can't be argued" - argued in the sense of disproven.
@avidalocan My ideas can't be logically refuted precisely because they are logically correct. If my ideas weren't logically correct then they would be able to be logically refuted. Any logical person could refute them if they contained a logical error.
@KevinSolway Do you realise there is a difference between a logically coherent system that cannot be logically refuted, and the truth, or that which is true? Logical irrefutability is not truth per se, the same way mathematical equations aren't true, even though they can't be refuted. Stuff people make up isn't true, only the Infinite is true. By that I mean the unifying spirit or essence behind all things. That which cannot die and was never born. Your ideas are meaningless in the face of that.
@avidalocan *Limited* logical systems can be logically coherent, and yet be false from a larger perspective. But since my philosophical reasonings are not limited it follows that there is no larger perspective from which they may be found to be false - unless they are logically faulty, or can be logically proven to be limited.
@KevinSolway "my philosophical reasonings are not limited" - to present that as an unarguable concept would no doubt be laughable to real philosophers, who find the limitations in all reasonings, all the time.
Yet again you are using the fallacy of "appeal to opinion" (ad populum). You are an extreme fool.
Firstly, you don't know anything about real philosophers, and secondly if there is a "limitatation in all reasonings, all the time" that in itself would be unlimited.
@KevinSolway This time I'm appealing to expert opinion, exactly like when an expert witness is called in a court of law. In such as situation, I don't think your protestations that it would be "appeal to opinion" would hold any weight, so I don't see why you feel so smugly superior to it now. It's you who wants to impose philosophical rules on how other people view your ideas and yourself, not the people who comment on you. You're the fool, because they can comment on you how they wish.
@avidalocan "This time I'm appealing to expert opinion"
Firstly, you have no idea who are "expert" philosophers - which I've already said. Secondly, experts are often wrong.
It wouldn't matter if all the expert scientists in the world were of the opinion that I didn't exist, but you are too irrational to realize this. That's why you are unable to understand the reason logical fallacies are fallacious.
You also have a habit of virtually, and often quite literally, knowing nothing at all about someone, and then within seconds coming up with derogatory comments against them as if you knew that subject thoroughly. It would be impressive if it was actually correct, but because the goal of it is to aggrandise yourself at their expense, it is merely slander based on inaccurate and negativistic surface glances at them. It is simple toxic character assassination masquerading as intelligent appraisal..
Once again, this is something you are just making up. You need to start providing some actual evidence, rather than just making up stuff. You are interpreting valid criticism as something that it is not.
Here's your litany of comments on artists: Keith Richards=looks like he's dead. Sting=weird guy, Springsteen=very American, Kurt Cobain=does he every go outside?,Larry David=like Woody Allen and too much like real life, Fun Lovin' Criminals=revamped Barry White, INXS=Sydney trash, Fleetwood Mac=keyboards sound like I could play them at home.
This is the kind of wanton criticism you indulge in with every person you come across, who has any kind of notoriety.
@avidalocan I've never said that Sting was weird, but I do have a lot of other criticisms of him. I don't care if Keith Richards looks dead, it's what he does that seems dead to me. Kurt Cobain, "does he ever go outside?" That's hilarious. Larry David, "too much like real life". Exactly right. I don't believe I've ever heard "Fun loving criminals", INXS, "trash". Exactly right. It doesn't matter which musician you care to name, because I have a low opinion of musicians generally. Deal with it
@KevinSolway You've got a habit of picking on the smallest most trifling fauly in EVERY SINGLE PERSON you encounter with the goal of trying to make that fault representative of the person as a whole, so as to devalue them and make yourself look greater. This could be anyone at all, from famous people to anyone on the street. You do it for ego gratification, you've been doing it for most of your life, and you'll do it to the end of your life.
@avidalocan "make that fault representative of the person as a whole"
That's just your imagination. For example, I think Fleetwood mac are an absolutely brilliant band, despite the fact that they have faults. And I think Weininger is one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, even though he too has faults. So you are simply wrong on this matter. You are welcome to your personal opinion, but that's all it is.
@KevinSolway Why is it hilarious that you said of Kurt Cobain and Nirvana that "they look like they never go outside?" I recall you saying that in 1997 while watching a video of the band. Your opinion was that they looked like they never went out for a walk in nature, just living inside all the time. That was your response to the biggest movement in popular Western music since The Beatles, and one which revolutionised it with a similar intensity. A completely facile comment.
@avidalocan I've read the writings of Kurt Cobain, and he had the mentality of a thirteen year old boy despite the fact that he was a full-grown adult. If you don't see why it's funny then I don't think you have a good sense of humour. I also think some of Nirvana's music is excellent, despite all their faults. You are simply upset because your gods are being criticised.
@KevinSolway Kurt Cobain never wrote much, so I don't know what you're talking about here. His alleged suicide note while he was high on heroin perhaps? He was mainly a musical and visual artist, not a writer. So which song of Nirvana's do you think was excellent? I don't think any of them are Gods, I just think constant criticism without acknowledgement of their qualities is unhealthy. The reason any of them are successful is because their sins are forgivable to the masses anyway.
@avidalocan I haven't even thought of any of those musicians you mentioned for many years - probably at least 8 years, and only gave you my opinion of them when prompted, so I don't don't know what you are talking about with regard to "constant criticisism".
@avidalocan "criticism you indulge in with every person you come across, who has any kind of notoriety."
There's nothing wrong with valid criticism. If I disagree with what a person believes, or if I disagree with what they are doing with their life, then I am entitiled to give reasons why I think they are wrong, or why I don't approve, or even why I don't like their music.
Since nobody is perfect, everyone has faults. Get used to it.
"finding valid faults is not character assassination" - it is when all you do is find faults, over and over, with a long series of people. If someone was Enlightened, they wouldn't be creating the art they do, and wouldn't be there to begin with for you to find some fault with them. Trust the art, not the artist. I really think you don't like attention being diverted away from yourself, which is why you disparage others who have more attention than you directed at them. You envy them.
@avidalocan There's nothing wrong with finding faults with different people's ideas so long as they are genuine faults. You gave a perfect example of the kind of thing I find fault with, with your example of Weininger's claim that Beethoven's music is the greatest in the world. Since Weininger had only heard a small fraction of the music in the world, he is unqualified to jump to the conclusion that Beethoven is the greatest. Finding valid faults is not character assassination.
@cunnidvd If you're saying that about Kevin, I firmly agree, and may I add, that's a very eloquent summation.
I've also never seen anyone so reliant on outside judgement. Like he has no inner measuring stick of his own worth, and has to pull others in like a black hole so he can have something material, rather than a personal sense of his own worth independent from them.
@avidalocan "I've also never seen anyone so reliant on outside judgement"
What evidence do you have that I'm reliant on outside judgement? One again you are merely making these things up. You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions.
The greatest apocalyptic scenario I've ever read is that by Otto Weininger at the end of Sex and Character. It is an incredibly difficult opinion to find fault with. I read it over a decade ago but cannot get it out of my mind. Its the best thing ever written. He's saying that humanity hangs by this thread. If we go the wrong way, and can't get back, we're destined for implosion as a species. And it's all because of what I see around me that I believe in it, not simply from what he writes.
Kelly's "Men Communicate Better" video is a cut above what I've seen from her in the past. I wish she would do more of that kind of material. A lot of it seems to come from other sources, but this seemed to be her own ideas, and they are hard to shoot down. There's plenty of people, women and men, who look at you like you're a dangerous alien from another solar system if you dare to say the reality of what goes on around you. It's not only females though - its anyone with vested interests.
That's the facts of the matter. I don't at the moment recall you ever personally having made such a statement publicly. But this is such a trivial issue, and yet you beat it up into the central core of your argument, diverting attention from the real issue at hand. Methinks the leader doth protest too much. You supported that statement being made by someone in your group, by making the video of them doing it, or scripting it.. Don't try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
@KevinSolway I can't even remember the exact statement but it seemed like exactly the kind of thing you would say and want her to say. I'll have to find the video, write down the statement, and ask you if you support that statement. Otherwise, we're dealing with way too many maybes. But I have to say, my personal opinion is that if you deny you support the statement broadly,. I think you would be the liar. Then again, that's an opinion only, as is much of what you say also.
@KevinSolway In the "Importance of Misogyny" Kelly said ""if we're disconnected from reality, if we can't see consequences, if we can't have an appreciation of cause and effect then what's the use? we might as well just allow ourselves to be suicidal and head straight for extinction".
Given that these tenets are among the very core principles of your philosophy, it is fair to say that you are saying that we are doomed if we don't follow your way if you support her statement.
@avidalocan "Given that these tenets are among the very core principles of your philosophy"
I don't know if that's what Kelly said but those are the central tenets of *all* good philosophy, and I support all good philosophy, no matter whether it is Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or whatever else.
@FactVsReligion Great job on attacking his person, and you have failed to refute any of his argumentation. You seam to think that people cant have absolute truth? If that is the case? Are you absolutely sure?
OpenAirAtheist 2 months ago
Then it got too much work for him, so he threw it out the window, did next to nothing on it, and left me to do all the work. Then he tried to put his name first on the credit months later when it was complete. Whatever takes his fancy is what he does - you can't depend on him to consistently go in any direction for any longer than it pleases or suits him, and he will milk his current schtick for all its worth while he has it, before he gets a new one, when it is not to be discussed any longer.
avidalocan 2 months ago
If you like, Kevin squeezes everything he can get out of an image, or appearance that he creates, and then, when something else suits him better, totally jettisons that way of being for a totally different and even opposing and contradictory way of being. He's not consistent. He does whatever suits him better, while putting himself forward as above that kind of hypocritical person. I translated a book with him once and at the start he was full on into it, working hard as best he could every day
avidalocan 2 months ago
The fact that Kevin is so innately attuned to the travails of the most mundane of people, the kind who want to turn beautiful countryside where he lived for a decade into a world of concrete for example, speaks more to the fact that he is at their level rather than above them. He is also someone seeking the fulfillment of blind, long-standing primeval needs out of his own control, and beyond his ability even to really fathom. He understands that type well, because he is the same as them.
avidalocan 2 months ago
In a way Kevin has simple needs - some attention, however small, and whatever kind, means so much to him, while most men say "ba-humbug" or even recoil at it. This is I think why he portrays himself as someone with complex philosophical goals - it throws people off the scent of what he's really after - people who will enhance his feeling of being a fulfilled or "fixed" narcissist; something that is the very core of his life, so much so that many people around him don't even see it, its so deep.
avidalocan 2 months ago
doesn't mean that he's a worthless person. Just that he needs narcissistic supply, badly. Like a heroin addict needs a fix. Kevin's quite good at insights into the psychology of mundane people, strawmen if you like, but he lacks the ability needed for philosophy of the kind Weininger or Nietzsche wrote, and yet ironically, he believes himself to be at or above their level, with nothing to support that claim. Kevin is good at attacking easy targets, but not complex, multifaceted matters.
avidalocan 2 months ago
Even someone making claims that they are the wisest person on earth, a genius, on the same level as the greatest spritual thinkers in the world - such a claim needs to be backed up by serious evidence. If the evidence is non-existent, there is some kind of disorder there, if the person makes the claims over, in this case, their entire adult life (30 years) and has never had anything to back it up with. These behaviours are from someone urgently seeking narcissistic supply, and lying to get it.
avidalocan 2 months ago
for an official organisation, and when asked what you translated you were silent, they would have no choice but to dismiss you, because translators know how to use language, and silence isn't an explanation. Why can you not say what you translated, yet boast pridefully that you did such a large amount of work? Anyone whose translated anything would be flabbergasted at that inability to use language, the same tool you claim high skill in in two languages, to defend yourself on this matter.
avidalocan 2 months ago
..one term over another, or one way of representing an idea over another. A real translator would not turn into a deaf and dumb mute when asked what exactly he translated - in fact it would be totally the opposite, because he has to justifty why he did it that way, so he needs to articulate that firstly to himself, then to interested others or skeptics. You on the other hand, say nothing when asked for actual evidence of what you actually translated yourself. If you were an interpreter..
avidalocan 2 months ago
Kevin - In July, you wrote "I made contributions to every single sentence that was translated, and there would not be any sentence in the entire translation that is entirely your work. In addition, many of the sentences are mostly my work." You also wrote "I am directly responsible for at least half of the translation".
I replied "Can you provide any examples?". You did not offer any examples however, which is extremely unusual for translators, who can talk voluminously about why they chose
avidalocan 2 months ago
@FactVsReligion
You might want to look up the Psychologist's fallacy. And the dimestore freud game. Do yourself a favor and leave the diagnosis to professionals. Behaviorism is somewhere on a fuzzy line between a science & pseudoscience.
AlainG80 3 months ago
@AlainG80 I can tell you that while I think it is dangerous to diagnose someone with mental illness, of any kind, and even for professionals, that doesn't mean that the most glaringly obvious of cases can't be accurately identified, more or less. In the enormous range of behaviours that characterise narcissism, the question for me is, does this person have enough of those traits, and are they strong enough in them? The condition is determinable for those who tick many of those boxes.
avidalocan 2 months ago
@avidalocan
You can judge a single (set) behavior(s) but not a disorder from here.
Judging disorders from the limited data is a selection bias. In psychiatric clinics they have process psychiatrist who don't interact with the subject to prevent a number of biases. No longitudinal studies.
You also can't exclude Experimenter's or Expectation bias, Actor–observer bias, Trait ascription bias, Fundamental attribution error, Subjective validation, Observer-expectancy effect & Von Restorff effect.
AlainG80 2 months ago
@AlainG80 A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, rigid, scripted dialog, obsession with brand management, low level of actual achievements, flip-flopping on claims expediently, imperturbability, cycle of ideation (of the members of his cults) and devaluation (of others), personality cult, interpersonal exploitation. They don't make up a commonly found group of behaviours. If you have all of them, calling that person a narcissist is quite reasonable, if you can show a pattern of these behaviours.
avidalocan 2 months ago
@avidalocan
As a Dutch person we are often accused of rigidity cultural calvinism. Can you tell the difference between rigidity and strong willpower. As for scripted dialog there's nothing wrong with that.
(Destructive) Narcissist is an ad hominem since it refers to someones identity instead of his behavior.
Someone might have destructive narcissistic traits, or that person might enjoy pro liberal conservative (objectivist) behavior. It's all relative. 1/2
AlainG80 2 months ago
@avidalocan
Flip flopping might be interpreted as situational behavior. Expediently: or just target oriented. Imperturbability: maybe he doesn't value feelings and prefers rationale. Seems quite common under people with high testosterone levels and a certain political ideology. It all depends on your subjective point of view. As for the cult well you can blame that to the Goverments tax exemption in the U.S. 2/3
AlainG80 2 months ago
@AlainG80 Kevin was an avowed bachelor for his entire life until he was 38, when he began a four year relationship with a woman. To me, that's whimsical flip-flopping in the extreme - to profess contempt and disdain for something until you are almost 40 years old, then turn around and do exactly what you condemned for a period of almost half a decade. It's turns any idea of consistency of philosophy totally on its head. And four years is to long to categorise it as an experiment.
avidalocan 2 months ago
@avidalocan
I'm unsure if he appreciates you divulging this kind of private information. Do you have a personal axe to grind? And I hope that you base your flip-flopping case on more than 1 instance, this example is not very convincing at all.
AlainG80 2 months ago
@AlainG80 You have far to much concern for Mr Solway I can assure you. If you had any substantial dealings with him, you'd later regret being an erstwhile supporter. My only issue is that Kevin should be held to account for what he says and does the same as anyone else. Because he's on a narcissistic trip for his whole life though, that's a mammoth task. In his world, whatever you do or say is fine so long as you get your narcissistic supply. Its bad for those who cross his path.
avidalocan 2 months ago
@AlainG80 The point I wanted to make about Kevin basing his image on celibacy and then taking a girlfriend for several years out of nowhere is that Kevin promotes himself as being something more than what he is. For the period that he was single (38 years) he pushes himself out there as a Christ like figure, above the emotional or sexual, in a philosophical realm etc and then he turns around when it suits him and centers his life around a woman who shares none of those aspirations for years.
avidalocan 2 months ago
@avidalocan As for interpersonal exploitation: point to antisocial or illegal behavior (depending on what you mean). You probably have no access to his beliefs & convictions and or values & drivers and therefore can't make any -ist claims. And you also haven't addressed my concerns about your own biases influencing your theories. Seems very common among certain testosterone and ambitiously driven people in a liberal & capitalistic environment like certain parts of the U.S. 3/3
AlainG80 2 months ago
@AlainG80 I think the fact that I met Kevin almost 17 years ago, and knew him fairly constantly for seven years, would actually be something that would compel me not to come to the same conclusion as someone who has never met him. However, the facts were so overwhelming, I had to eventually concur with the diagnosis in this video, ultimately because of a belief in honesty and truth, regardless of what it costs me. The only thing I haven't said is that just because he has these traits...
avidalocan 2 months ago
@avidalocan
I don't object to ascribing traits or behaviors, they serve a valid purpose of correcting antisocial behavior. I just object to diagnosing disorders over the internet by non-professionals who don't understand the weak points of the DSM IV & V manual.
AlainG80 2 months ago
@AlainG80 Narcissism as an officially recognised personality disorder was removed from the DSM this year, so that is no longer a relevant point.
avidalocan 2 months ago
@avidalocan
Yes it is a disorder, and no you're not able to make such a diagnosis, since you obviously lack professional training.
It is only supposed to be only diagnosed by professionals, who among other tests/procedures use (judicial) case files.
And it is still there, so it is relevant:
dsm5 org/proposedrevision/Pages/PersonalityDisorders.aspx
Stop using the term narcicism and use narcistic behavior instead.
AlainG80 2 months ago
@AlainG80 It might be there now, but not for long: "As Charles Zanor reports in today’s Science Times, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — due out in 2013 and known as D.S.M.-5 — has eliminated five of the 10 personality disorders that are listed in the current edition. The best known of these is narcissistic personality disorder." - New York Times, November 29, 2010
avidalocan 2 months ago
@avidalocan
Please have a look at that website it's the original site not a secondary source like yours. We will know by 2013 for sure. And DSMIV-TR is still active till 2013 so the point you make is mute.
AlainG80 2 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
@marsCubed When I translated Weininger, Kevin, who struggles to translate even the most basic German, boldly declared that his interpretation, based only on his own ideas as a non-German speaker, was more correct than mine, who spoke it, and a respected German dictionary. His explanation for that was "if I think it's right, it is." When I finished translating it, he then rushed out an introduction replete with the term "we" regardless of his total lack of contribution to it.
avidalocan 3 months ago
@avidalocan Everybody can be a miserable twat sometimes. however narcissistic personality turns to cheats all the time.
'Classically' it's a condition where a child is chastised & cynically put down. cutting snide remarks etc. to grow up with a sense of being unlovable failure.
Facing up to being a twat is unbearable as it means dealing with inner feelings, so it gets covered with self praise & little regard for others.
Mind games with the insane is insane.
Serious therapy etc, can help.
marsCubed 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
@marsCubed The only way to curtail this charlatan's damage to someone is if they have enough information before they get too involved with him, so my motivation is to nip it in the bud. Anyone who maintains involvement with one of these freaks gets burned to varying degrees. I wish I had someone to warn me before I got in too deep but unfortunately, forums weren't as vicious back in the late 90s as today. They should be - honesty is critical to protect people from narcissists.
avidalocan 3 months ago
@avidalocan "his total lack of contribution to it."
I have an email from you from a few weeks ago which stated that I did indeed contribute half. So you are bullshitting yet again.
KevinSolway 3 months ago
@KevinSolway In order to contribute as a TRANSLATOR Kevin, because the credit says "Translated By" you have to have a high degree of proficiency in the language. If you don't you are a researcher, or assistant. Even Steven Burns, who translated the entire book, told me this. There is no doubt that you were a researcher and contributor to the English once translated. But your German skills aren't up to the level of a translator, which is an extremely challenging task. Translators are like doctors
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
@lairdshaw Good to his friends. I spent hundreds of hours, and almost a year of my life on a public domain dicitonary digitisation project. After 12 years of sharing the profits of it 50/50, he turns around after some internet posts he doesn't like and says he now gets 100% of it! You call that good to his friends or acquaintances? I can even send you a written agreement signed in March 2011 where he agrees to 50/50 as usual. You haven't seen what he's like when things aren't going his way yet.
avidalocan 3 months ago
@avidalocan I'm shocked that you lay implicit claim to a friendship with Kevin that he ought to have honoured. From what I understand, your attitude towards him became hostile long before this dictionary project became a bone of contention. "Some internet posts he doesn't like" - my understanding is that the content of those posts was persistently unkind and unpleasant: not exactly the posts of a "friend". I don't see why Kevin ought to honour a friendship that you implicitly disavowed.
lairdshaw 3 months ago
@lairdshaw I'm shocked that you think I should spend hundreds of hours of hard work supplying Kevin with data for the program as a joint venture and then have it all go to providing him with a saleable product that I get NO share in simply because he doesn't consider me "a friend" or never did. You seem to put his judgements upon me above a person's legal rights as the product was a joint venture from the start and he is still selfishly and abusively using my work without paying me.
avidalocan 3 months ago
@avidalocan When you start a vendetta against someone, don't be surprised if they want to withdraw from pre-existing joint ventures with you. "Saleable"? You guys have barely made chump change out of it. Surely money can't be the real issue here. As for "selfishly and abusively using [your] work", I understand that Kevin has taken pains to fully replace your labour. If you're dissatisfied about your work going to waste without further reward, then do likewise and release a competing product.
lairdshaw 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
@avidalocan Basically, it's your word against Kevin's, and all I know of you is what Kevin's told me and what I've seen of your posts on YouTube. If the dictionary was a commercially viable/successful project I might advise you to seek arbitration; as it is, I'd advise you to just let this drop and focus your time and energy on something more constructive. Take all of the negative energy you're putting into hating on Kevin and rechannel it into positive energy for a new, meaningful project.
lairdshaw 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
KevinSolway 3 months ago
Comment removed
KevinSolway 3 months ago
@avidalocan "dozens of others"
You really are a first class dickhead. Even though it has been repeatedly explained to you that it is a logical fallacy to refer to what other people may believe, you continue to use exactly the same logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are you life. I can see why you have such an affinity with FactVsReligion's channel.
I've already told you that you are welcome to take your issues to court. The reason you don't is that you don't have a case.
KevinSolway 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
@KevinSolway "Don't have a case" - so you signing a legally binding document in March this year saying all future sales of the product wil be split 50/50 is meaningless under the law? You make a few changes and suddenly its not a digitised public domain dictionary but a "totally different product"? Whose going to believe that apart from you and your followers?
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 3 months ago
@avidalocan I've known Kevin as an active neighbour and software collaborator for over four years, and I stand by my original comments - whilst he has his flaws, he's fundamentally of good character. I'm willing, though, to hear you out - if you really want me to look at these email correspondences then PM me and let's first establish exactly what it is that you're trying to prove to me. In the meantime, let's please drop this public discussion. Cheers.
lairdshaw 3 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 4 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 4 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 4 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 4 months ago
as long as this video is here on you tube everyone has the right to watch it & contribute their opinion
TheKhat88 5 months ago
If you read the comment again I simply said i understand the traits she is describing which present as narcissistic & i am not qualified to diagnose however i am a menatl health worker and have met a great deal of people with personality disorders in my personal & work life. hence the guy i dated fooled me for a very short amount of time & didn't get past the dating process.
TheKhat88 5 months ago
@advidalocan - i did dump him, im no masochist : )
TheKhat88 5 months ago
@kevinsollaway. the man i met pretends to be 44yrs old & in reality is 50yrs old. he pretends to be a practising qualified therapist. both these things are checkable. his age is fake, he is not a registered therapist & the info he gave me about his ex-wife(age & stating that she had a personality disorder) are all fabrications which i have checked out & much more lies. its the grandiose way he talks led me to uncover his web of lies. on being found out he is a very abusive man.
TheKhat88 5 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 5 months ago
@TheKhat88 I'm talking about the person that is talked about in this video - not the person you have met. What qualifies you to judge the person in this video? ESP?
KevinSolway 5 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 5 months ago
@avidalocan As I've said, my new products are signficantly different. There are a great many differences, and not merely cosmetic. If you think there is an injustice then you should take it up in court. The reason you don't is that you don't have a case.
KevinSolway 5 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 5 months ago
@avidalocan "why the reticence in proving it"
To show you all the changes I have made would require that I provide you with the source code to the software, and I definitely won't be doing that. As I've already said, if you think there is an injustice then you should take it to court. The reason you don't do it is that you don't have a case.
KevinSolway 5 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 4 months ago
@avidalocan I have not described the changes as minor, but always described them as "significant changes".
KevinSolway 4 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 4 months ago
@avidalocan "charlatan"
If I am a charalatan then you should be able to prove that I am. The fact that you can't means that it is yourself who is the charlatan.
KevinSolway 4 months ago
@KevinSolway What you mean is, prove it to you. But no-one can prove something to someone who refuses to listen to any of that proof, and/or who has a strong vested interest in ignoring that proof. And you do not represent the average person in terms of your ability to judge whether or not I have supplied proof that you are a charlatan - your general cognitive level is too poor to use as a model for the average person's intelligence. You often think you are right regardless of evidence.
avidalocan 4 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 4 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 5 months ago
@avidalocan That's bullshit, as I have not threatened to sell anything we have worked on. So you are straight-out lying. You should remove your stupid comments and lies out of decency - if you had any.
KevinSolway 5 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 5 months ago
@avidalocan You said you would remove your comments, and I expect you to follow your word. That's the only reason I expect you to remove the comments. The new products I am releasing have nothing to do with you. I did not say my new products have only minor changes, but that any new product would require only minor changes since the content is public domain material. My new products are significantly different.
KevinSolway 5 months ago
@avidalocan Also, it's YOU who has been obsessively emailing me, just as you obsessively post your stupid messages to this web page.
KevinSolway 5 months ago
@avidalocan If you think there has been an injustice you should take it up in court. The reason you don't take it to court is that you don't have a case.
KevinSolway 5 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 5 months ago
I know exactly what she is talking about as i just met one these guys, also pretending to have extensive knowledge & qualifications in philosophy,psychology,spirituality & design which where all false but gets him the attention & the constant flow of NSS sexual relationships on FB, dating sites etc that he requires to inflate his ego
TheKhat88 5 months ago
@TheKhat88 How do you know that his qualifications are false? ESP?
KevinSolway 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKhat88 5 months ago
Laura, are you actually speaking about yourself?
hallcyon 5 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 6 months ago
@nmaheshp Academia and popular culture condemning Weininger as anti-women, anti-Jews etc is just a way of saying "This man speaks the truth." If you want spiritual and intellectual hollowness, keep kowtowing to academia and popular views, because you'll never run short of them there. Although I have more than a few grave misgivings about Kevin, his belief that Weininger was a genius is not one of them (not that this means I think he really understands him, but 10 points for trying).
avidalocan 6 months ago
"provide proof" that my followers are not intelligent
I recently read a post on some forum by David Quinn castigating someone for something and saying "it's what the nazis did". Has he ever heard of Reductio ad Hitlerum or Godwin's Law? Does he realise how much of a sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is, even when used seriously much less in his flippant and offhand style? Of course he doesn't, because he doesn't think about himself, as why should he when he's reached "perfection".
avidalocan 8 months ago
Hey Kevin, totally off topic but do you think Christopher Hitchens, possibly months away from death by cancer and in the throes of chemotherapy, has maybe thought "What the hell, if these God people are right, I don't want to die without trying." and perhaps prayed to the God he so vocally despises to save his life. I mean what's he got to lose right? Why not hedge his bets a little while he still can? It's a funny thing for someone like him to do but I sure bet he's thought of it a few times.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "what's he got to lose? "
His dignity, self respect, reputation, impact on the world, etc.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway How could that happen if he didn't tell anyone he prayed for his life at some point, in private?
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan Whatever you do has an impact on the world around you - even if you try to keep it a secret. Cause and effect does not allow for anything to remain in isolation.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Given that his impact on the world is likely to be limited to digital archives in the near future, I would hope he partakes of every possible means to maximise the chances of that not happening, even if those means were to go against his well-prosyletized beliefs. After all, dead men tell no tales.
avidalocan 9 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan They problem is that you need to provide *proof*. Your personal opinion is meaningless. Telling someone that they are a fool for using logical fallacies is not "abuse".
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway There is a correlation between intelligence and following your beliefs or ideas. The more intelligent realise your ideas aren't great and move on, leaving you with a few average to low intelligence people who continue to follow those ideas. And even those people, when they get a bit older and wiser, stop subserviently following you. You refuse to even consider this because it would reveal that like them, you are of the same questionable intelligence, except they grew - you didn't.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "they grew"
Once again you are referring to the opinions of people. The opinions of people is your god. Everything you say is pure logical fallacy.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KevinSolway "opinions of people are your God" - says the man who just a few posts down insists that his ideas "are *exactly* the same truths as those spoken by the Buddha, Weininger, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche".
Why should you care if your ideas are same as them Kevin? Be your own man, Don't use those people as a crutch for your ideas. Those people are your God. Don't lean on them for support.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@KevinSolway For someone who proudly trumpets, on this very page " The truths that I speak are *exactly* the same truths as those spoken by the Buddha, Weininger, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and a great many others", you sure have some cheek to accuse me of worshipping other peoples' opinions.
avidalocan 9 months ago
Comment removed
avidalocan 9 months ago
I know you are going to say that it doesn't matter who agrees and who doesn't but I've never agreed with much of what you've ever said, so I've looked around to see if you convinced people more intelligent than me. In my opinion, you haven't done that. You believe you have, but I see those more intelligent people arguing against you, not with you, and the less intelligent meekly following you. That's my opinion, as I don't have the energy to pick it apart now. Too tedious and unrewarding.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "I've never agreed with much of what you've ever said"
Thank God for small mercies! Something would be seriously wrong if you did agree with me.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Something would be wrong indeed, because then I would be the only intelligent person who ever did agree with all of your ideas!! Everyone else who has (three people) weren't all that bright.
avidalocan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@avidalocan "three people"
Once again you are appealing to the fallacy of ad populum. You truly are one of the most stupid people on the planet.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@avidalocan "All reasonings are limited"
Your particular reasoning is limited. You speak only for yourself.
"I could be wrong"
You are definitely wrong.
"No-one will ever know either way"
You are definitely wrong about that too. Perhaps YOU will never know either way.
"Knowledge changes"
Logical and philosophical truths, and knowledge of those truths, never change. The knowledge is always of the very same truths.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Until something is discovered that we don't already know. Like why can't we understand Quantum Physics. When the reason for that is understood, all logical and philosophical truths could need to be changed to remain valid. If we met aliens from other planets, they may have discovered things we haven't - things which fill in the blanks on currently accepted forms of logical and philosophical truths. There are too many unknowns to make a rock solid judgement about anything.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "logical truths could need to be changed"
This statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no understanding of logic.
The fact that A=A can never be changed.
"There are too many unknowns"
There are too many unknowns FOR YOU to make *any* of the absolute statements you are making. You speak only for yourself.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway The only conclusion I can draw from why there aren't any people whose intellect I respect who believe in your truths, is that you cannot convince intelligent people. The second option is that all people except you, David Quinn, Dan Rowden and Kelly Jones are of an abysmally low intelligence, and cannot even comprehend what you are saying. I know that is what you actually believe, but I think you more people would have agreed with you by now than them if your truth was just that.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan The truths that I speak are *exactly* the same truths as those spoken by the Buddha, Weininger, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and a great many others. But I've explained to you many times before that it doesn't matter one iota how many people believe something, even if you respect them. You keep making the same logical errors, over and over again. Try thinking for yourself.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway The Wikipedia definition I've been looking at is grossly deficient, if referring to one person's opinion is just as valid as referring to any number of people's opinions. That definition does not mention that at all, but focuses on "the majority" or "the largest group".
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan The Wikipedia article assumes that the reader will understand the reason *why* the beliefs of a majority are meaningless. The reason *why* is the fallacy of the "appeal to belief", which is mentioned at the top of the article.
The article also assumes that the reader will understand that "majorities" apply in groups of *all sizes*, including groups of one. In a group of one there is a majority of one.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway If you write an academic article, you might cite several people's opinions 95% of the time, because they support your argument, or you understand them the best, or they were the most articulate or meaningful to you. You're not saying that a majority have that opinion. You are selecting preferred sources to support an argument. Numerically, there could be 10 times as many people with the opposite or very different opinion, but that's irrelevant to the case you are putting forward.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "but that's irrelevant to the case"
Absolutely it's irrelevant. Philosophy is not science. This is something you don't understand. Science works by consensus, but philosophy is not about consensus.
Socrates doesn't say "Joe Bloggs agrees with me". He would rather kill himself first.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway What I meant was, in an academic paper, it's irrelevant to the case is say 98% of all people who wrote on the subject said A when the 2% said B and your argument is for B, It's like the reverse of appeal to the people. So when I present others and my own ideas about you, I don't care if the whole world worships you as a God - I'm putting forth one argument about you and supplying whatever evidence supports that.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan You are a fool. It doesn't matter one iota what you, or other people believe. This has already been explained to you many times.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
ipso facto true. That is also a fallacy because a system of ideas that cannot be philosophically or by its own rules disproven, is not automatically proven correct by that very fact.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan All of my ideas are open to being disproven by anyone who thinks they can disprove them. All it requires is reasoning, and nothing more.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Do you think your ideas can be disproven?
avidalocan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@avidalocan "Do you think your ideas can be disproven?"
My philosophical ideas can no more be disproven than the fact that A=A. If A=A is logically incorrect, then my ideas can be disproven.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway I think you're skilled at presenting an image of yourself that appeals to some people from a distance but I definitely know that once you decide someone is less than human, which is virtually everyone to you, the way you deal with them would drive away all but the most slavish and dull. I'd be very surprised if the people who support your comments would do so had they experienced this directly. Until then, they live in a world of make-believe about what you really are.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan That's just your personal opinion, and that's all it is. It has no foundation in reality.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
From Schopenhauer's 'The Art of Controversy': ".....the universality of an opinion is no proof, nay, it is not even a probability, that the opinion is right. Those who maintain that it is so must assume that length of time deprives a universal opinion of its demonstrative force, as otherwise all the old errors which were once universally held to be true would have to be recalled and...
jupta00 9 months ago
"a low opinion of musicians generally" - playing the obligatory "fill in the blanks" game with you, people might think that you only devalue musicians in particular, and have a high opinion of other artists or writers. The reality is, musicians are only one group in a cast of thousands that you disparage at any opportunity. The impression you create of having a particularly low opinion of one group is wrong - you have the same low opinion of everyone except yourself and your "truth".
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan " disparage at any opportunity"
That's obviously bullshit. I certainly don't disparage musicians when I'm enjoying their music. So you are simply making things up again.
I have a lower opinion of all people who do not seek the truth (including musicians) than people who do seek the truth. That is a logical necessity and won't surprise anyone. You will find that even FVR would have a lower opinion of all non-atheists than of atheists. It's exactly the same thing.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway So you don't think you are the kind of person who quickly finds fault, and verbalises your findings, with virtually everyone who pops up on the box or comes up in conversation?
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan I am the kind of person who can quickly find faults and virtues. I don't verbalize my findings unless I can be fairly certain of being correct.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Well there must be a very small number of people with virtues out there because I didn't hear many pronouncements about them coming from you in several years. That's not an opinion, its just that I didn't hear any virtues, just vices.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "I didn't hear many pronouncements"
You are not one of the people I confide in, so you shouldn't expect to hear what I think.
I wouldn't have spent years translating Weininger if I didn't think he had virtues. So you are just making things up again.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Except you didn't do much translating yourself - you asked others to do it, and got a couple of people. You haven't studied German enough to be able to do it yourself.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan Also, I've never said or implied that I have a "particularly* low opinion of any one group, so you are mistaken or lying. I don't have a lower opinion of musicians than I do of Christians.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway That is true. It just seems that way perhaps to some people, but you have never singled out any group for a particularly harsh, or lenient judgement. It's just the way you belittle one group can look as if you have singled them out, but that's to do with the tone of your writing, not the actual statements, and different people would interpret that tone differently to some extent.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan " It just seems that way perhaps to some people,"
Once again you are using the fallacy of the appeal to opinion (formally known as "ad populum"). You still haven't learned not to use this fallacy. Please try to understand that it doesn't matter a hoot what "seems to some people" - no matter how many people there are.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway I'm just saying what the tone of your writing comes across as to me, and what I believe would be a reasonable opinion. I'm not trying to present a philosophical point. This is an experiental point, from my own point of view, as well as other peoples' opinions of you I might cite. Experience may be subjective, but I don't know enough about philosophy generally to argue with your points, so it's all I can use. Also, you believe that because your points can't be argued, they are .....
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "you believe that because your points can't be argued"
I've *never* said that my points can't be argued. This is something you have made up. Every one of my points can be argued, and I do argue every one of them.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway I'm pretty sure you once said your points can't be logically refuted or something like that. That's what I meant by "can't be argued" - argued in the sense of disproven.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan My ideas can't be logically refuted precisely because they are logically correct. If my ideas weren't logically correct then they would be able to be logically refuted. Any logical person could refute them if they contained a logical error.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Do you realise there is a difference between a logically coherent system that cannot be logically refuted, and the truth, or that which is true? Logical irrefutability is not truth per se, the same way mathematical equations aren't true, even though they can't be refuted. Stuff people make up isn't true, only the Infinite is true. By that I mean the unifying spirit or essence behind all things. That which cannot die and was never born. Your ideas are meaningless in the face of that.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan *Limited* logical systems can be logically coherent, and yet be false from a larger perspective. But since my philosophical reasonings are not limited it follows that there is no larger perspective from which they may be found to be false - unless they are logically faulty, or can be logically proven to be limited.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway "my philosophical reasonings are not limited" - to present that as an unarguable concept would no doubt be laughable to real philosophers, who find the limitations in all reasonings, all the time.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "laughable to real philosophers"
Yet again you are using the fallacy of "appeal to opinion" (ad populum). You are an extreme fool.
Firstly, you don't know anything about real philosophers, and secondly if there is a "limitatation in all reasonings, all the time" that in itself would be unlimited.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway This time I'm appealing to expert opinion, exactly like when an expert witness is called in a court of law. In such as situation, I don't think your protestations that it would be "appeal to opinion" would hold any weight, so I don't see why you feel so smugly superior to it now. It's you who wants to impose philosophical rules on how other people view your ideas and yourself, not the people who comment on you. You're the fool, because they can comment on you how they wish.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "This time I'm appealing to expert opinion"
Firstly, you have no idea who are "expert" philosophers - which I've already said. Secondly, experts are often wrong.
It wouldn't matter if all the expert scientists in the world were of the opinion that I didn't exist, but you are too irrational to realize this. That's why you are unable to understand the reason logical fallacies are fallacious.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
You also have a habit of virtually, and often quite literally, knowing nothing at all about someone, and then within seconds coming up with derogatory comments against them as if you knew that subject thoroughly. It would be impressive if it was actually correct, but because the goal of it is to aggrandise yourself at their expense, it is merely slander based on inaccurate and negativistic surface glances at them. It is simple toxic character assassination masquerading as intelligent appraisal..
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "You also have a habit of . . ."
Once again, this is something you are just making up. You need to start providing some actual evidence, rather than just making up stuff. You are interpreting valid criticism as something that it is not.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
Here's your litany of comments on artists: Keith Richards=looks like he's dead. Sting=weird guy, Springsteen=very American, Kurt Cobain=does he every go outside?,Larry David=like Woody Allen and too much like real life, Fun Lovin' Criminals=revamped Barry White, INXS=Sydney trash, Fleetwood Mac=keyboards sound like I could play them at home.
This is the kind of wanton criticism you indulge in with every person you come across, who has any kind of notoriety.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan I've never said that Sting was weird, but I do have a lot of other criticisms of him. I don't care if Keith Richards looks dead, it's what he does that seems dead to me. Kurt Cobain, "does he ever go outside?" That's hilarious. Larry David, "too much like real life". Exactly right. I don't believe I've ever heard "Fun loving criminals", INXS, "trash". Exactly right. It doesn't matter which musician you care to name, because I have a low opinion of musicians generally. Deal with it
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway You've got a habit of picking on the smallest most trifling fauly in EVERY SINGLE PERSON you encounter with the goal of trying to make that fault representative of the person as a whole, so as to devalue them and make yourself look greater. This could be anyone at all, from famous people to anyone on the street. You do it for ego gratification, you've been doing it for most of your life, and you'll do it to the end of your life.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "make that fault representative of the person as a whole"
That's just your imagination. For example, I think Fleetwood mac are an absolutely brilliant band, despite the fact that they have faults. And I think Weininger is one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, even though he too has faults. So you are simply wrong on this matter. You are welcome to your personal opinion, but that's all it is.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Why is it hilarious that you said of Kurt Cobain and Nirvana that "they look like they never go outside?" I recall you saying that in 1997 while watching a video of the band. Your opinion was that they looked like they never went out for a walk in nature, just living inside all the time. That was your response to the biggest movement in popular Western music since The Beatles, and one which revolutionised it with a similar intensity. A completely facile comment.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan I've read the writings of Kurt Cobain, and he had the mentality of a thirteen year old boy despite the fact that he was a full-grown adult. If you don't see why it's funny then I don't think you have a good sense of humour. I also think some of Nirvana's music is excellent, despite all their faults. You are simply upset because your gods are being criticised.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway Kurt Cobain never wrote much, so I don't know what you're talking about here. His alleged suicide note while he was high on heroin perhaps? He was mainly a musical and visual artist, not a writer. So which song of Nirvana's do you think was excellent? I don't think any of them are Gods, I just think constant criticism without acknowledgement of their qualities is unhealthy. The reason any of them are successful is because their sins are forgivable to the masses anyway.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan I haven't even thought of any of those musicians you mentioned for many years - probably at least 8 years, and only gave you my opinion of them when prompted, so I don't don't know what you are talking about with regard to "constant criticisism".
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@avidalocan "criticism you indulge in with every person you come across, who has any kind of notoriety."
There's nothing wrong with valid criticism. If I disagree with what a person believes, or if I disagree with what they are doing with their life, then I am entitiled to give reasons why I think they are wrong, or why I don't approve, or even why I don't like their music.
Since nobody is perfect, everyone has faults. Get used to it.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
"finding valid faults is not character assassination" - it is when all you do is find faults, over and over, with a long series of people. If someone was Enlightened, they wouldn't be creating the art they do, and wouldn't be there to begin with for you to find some fault with them. Trust the art, not the artist. I really think you don't like attention being diverted away from yourself, which is why you disparage others who have more attention than you directed at them. You envy them.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan There's nothing wrong with finding faults with different people's ideas so long as they are genuine faults. You gave a perfect example of the kind of thing I find fault with, with your example of Weininger's claim that Beethoven's music is the greatest in the world. Since Weininger had only heard a small fraction of the music in the world, he is unqualified to jump to the conclusion that Beethoven is the greatest. Finding valid faults is not character assassination.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@cunnidvd If you're saying that about Kevin, I firmly agree, and may I add, that's a very eloquent summation.
I've also never seen anyone so reliant on outside judgement. Like he has no inner measuring stick of his own worth, and has to pull others in like a black hole so he can have something material, rather than a personal sense of his own worth independent from them.
avidalocan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@avidalocan "I've also never seen anyone so reliant on outside judgement"
What evidence do you have that I'm reliant on outside judgement? One again you are merely making these things up. You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
The greatest apocalyptic scenario I've ever read is that by Otto Weininger at the end of Sex and Character. It is an incredibly difficult opinion to find fault with. I read it over a decade ago but cannot get it out of my mind. Its the best thing ever written. He's saying that humanity hangs by this thread. If we go the wrong way, and can't get back, we're destined for implosion as a species. And it's all because of what I see around me that I believe in it, not simply from what he writes.
avidalocan 9 months ago
Kelly's "Men Communicate Better" video is a cut above what I've seen from her in the past. I wish she would do more of that kind of material. A lot of it seems to come from other sources, but this seemed to be her own ideas, and they are hard to shoot down. There's plenty of people, women and men, who look at you like you're a dangerous alien from another solar system if you dare to say the reality of what goes on around you. It's not only females though - its anyone with vested interests.
avidalocan 9 months ago
That's the facts of the matter. I don't at the moment recall you ever personally having made such a statement publicly. But this is such a trivial issue, and yet you beat it up into the central core of your argument, diverting attention from the real issue at hand. Methinks the leader doth protest too much. You supported that statement being made by someone in your group, by making the video of them doing it, or scripting it.. Don't try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "You supported that statement being made by someone in your group"
Didn't you watch this video by FVR? Laura correctly says that I don't consider Kelly to be part of my "group".
And nobody speaks on my behalf.
You are a lying piece of shit. What evidence do you have that I supported the statement that Kelly made?
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway I can't even remember the exact statement but it seemed like exactly the kind of thing you would say and want her to say. I'll have to find the video, write down the statement, and ask you if you support that statement. Otherwise, we're dealing with way too many maybes. But I have to say, my personal opinion is that if you deny you support the statement broadly,. I think you would be the liar. Then again, that's an opinion only, as is much of what you say also.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan I have no idea what Kelly says in her videos, but I have told you what my opinion on the matter is.
Namely, if people don't get rid of their delusions they are doomed.
That's exactly what I would say, and that's what I do say. I couldn't give a toss what you think I would say.
KevinSolway 9 months ago
@KevinSolway In the "Importance of Misogyny" Kelly said ""if we're disconnected from reality, if we can't see consequences, if we can't have an appreciation of cause and effect then what's the use? we might as well just allow ourselves to be suicidal and head straight for extinction".
Given that these tenets are among the very core principles of your philosophy, it is fair to say that you are saying that we are doomed if we don't follow your way if you support her statement.
avidalocan 9 months ago
@avidalocan "Given that these tenets are among the very core principles of your philosophy"
I don't know if that's what Kelly said but those are the central tenets of *all* good philosophy, and I support all good philosophy, no matter whether it is Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or whatever else.
KevinSolway 9 months ago