lekatt - yes... again

The BBQ Pit
1

lekatt is thread shitting and I’m tired of no one calling them on it - recently.

I know there was a pitting a few weeks back. I think we need another one.

In this thread lekatt has made several assertions. Not once have they been willing to provide a citation other than “look at my site.” Answers that could have been yes or no, were “read my site”. At any point and at all points they don’t seem amenable to answering questions honestly.

Requests for cites just get a handwave. If this is how GD is supposed to work… then, I’m very confused. It seems like it’s good form to actually give a citation for your assertions. As those requests are repeated - over and over again you’d expect them to get a clue.

I’m not sure if the visitor was a sock or a friend, but that looked convenient too.

And then… when pitted “I don’t go there.” That, in itself, is part of the problem. They aren’t correctable aren’t willing to be correctable and are just… not interested in honest discourse.

I don’t know the root of their inability to engage in the discourse with out being rude (and asserting and then NOT citing over and over again), but I’ll be damned if they don’t look out of step.

If I got a bit too riled in the thread, I’m sorry. I will say this, I feel like I’ve been talking to air. I tried given them a try. Didn’t work. Now I’m trying other means.

Lekatt needs to go.

(I will once more ignore the insufferable ass, but I hate that someone gets to go out there, make all kinds of assertions, and suffers no consequences except a loss of esteem by some. This is, from what I know, supposed to be a more troll-free experience.)

2

Due respect, but in the referenced thread, you said that you don’t believe in a non-corporeal soul, and the reason you gave was “I don’t see why I need to.” Why can’t someone else give an equally subjective reason?

3

Ok… hypothetical - do you believe in Russell’s Teapot? That there’s a teapot floating in space between the Earth and Mars in a stable orbit of the sun?

If not, why?

I can’t prove a negative. I can show why I don’t think I need one. And… they never asked for a cite.

4

I’m truly amazed that you got a bunch of handwaving arguments in a thread titled “Soul vs Innermost Self”.

5

As I’ve stated to a few people… if a person wants to submit an article of faith, that’s fine. If a person wants to hypothesize - cool. If a person cares to assert as truth their belief - on a subject that is BOUND to be more opinion than anything, I think a citation is a reasonable request.

If you read the thread through (it’s really overly long, and maybe you have) - or even do a decent skimming of the posts, I think you’ll find there was a very real discussion. And not as much hypothesizing as some might think.

Philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and other fields of study are converging sufficiently that it’s not as much “well I think”, “but what about the innate humanity of… yadda yadda.” It was actually grown up talk.

6

I just don’t. But I’m not demanding that someone else have a different reason than I have.

Actually, you can prove a negative. Otherwise, the assertion that you canNOT prove a negative would itself be absurd.

7

Exactly. There wasn’t much hand-waving in that thread; a lot of the discussion was quite good. But **lekatt ** is pathologically incapable of engaging in honest debate (i.e., seriously considering competing evidence, providing cites for his view, refraining from cherry-picking evidence, etc.). There are dualists and theists on this board with whom one can conduct a vigorous and intelligent discussion (**Liberal ** being foremost among them, IMO), but **lekatt ** is certainly not one of them.

8

Sooo… I’m allowed to think and say whatever the hell I want in regards to what I think and make factual claims that are false - or not give enough details that they can even be proved or falsified. I also, in the face of people not clicking a link to MY page, get to tell them that they are actually just fearful of the Truth. And that it causes me to be blind.

Additionally, from your pdf - the paragraph beginning at the bottom of the third page:

I think you’d be hard pressed to tell me that lekatt is not part of category 2.

In fact the brain-as-antenna thing… is a bit old. They’ve decided to keep the theory. Mind is non-corporeal and can’t be pinned down or changed at all. All chemicals do is change the antenna and not the mind… These are the assertions being made.

9

It’s really an honor to hear that from you.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. You made a big deal about cites, and then made an assertion that you can’t prove a negative. I gave you an authoritative cite showing that you’re wrong. In the spirit of your OP, why don’t you just say, “Oops, sorry, I was wrong.”?

10

Ummm… this is a strawman. I read your cite. The author explains why people submit that you can’t prove a negative and they make sense. Even so - many people, particularly religious, demand that you prove with 100.9999% accuracy that there is no god, no spirit, no soul or whatever the flavor du jour is.

Within the scope that the author defined - yes, you can prove a negative. Same as if I make a very specific (therefore falsifiable) claim, THAT would also be something that can be proved wrong.

In the sense that I was talking about the original thread… I stand by my guns.

I will, however, assent that “I can’t prove a negative” is not a sweeping truth, but a specific one. One that worked as I used it.

I think, at this point, I have shown that I can and will read on topic cites, cites that might be inconvenient, and cites that might make me feel a wee bit foolish.

Lekatt HASN’T. Why you are acting as an apologist for them, I’m not sure. I am certain that some took empathy or find some sympathy since what they were doing was asserting something that many faiths take as a given. Even so, it was not in the spirit of fair play or reasoned discourse.

Cites were provided, sure, III didn’t post a cite, but they were there.

I repeat, lekatt should go. Failing that, they need to know how to argue in a more reasoned manner. To assert, not cite, assert, not cite - despite requests - is categorically rude and poor form.

11

What you need to understand is that Lekatt is a .5 trick pony. (I don’t think he even deserves a full 1) No matter what anybody says to him about his pet obsession he always comes back to say exactly the same thing again in another thread. He occasionally pouts and claims he’s leaving, but he always comes back. He can’t help himself.

But, every time he does, somebody else calls him on it. It doesn’t affect him of course, because whatever he reads just passes on through like a prune juice enema, but the important thing is, it gets said. I like to think that anybody else who might be leaning toward Lekatt’s way of thinking gets to see the arguments against him and so maybe they come to understand what a crapmeister he is.

Also, nutter he may be, but I don’t think he qualifies as a troll. He seems to genuinely believe what he’s saying and I don’t think he’s out there just trying to make us crazy. He does that, granted, but I don’t think it’s malicious.

12

I was hoping for the sequel: “The Final Smackdown”.

13

I’ll grant that intent does matter. Even so, if someone was doing something else on the board, I dunno… something that isn’t malicious, but nonetheless loony or injurious to the board or certain people (without cause)… would that not matter?

Suppose I had delusions and was convinced that certain people on the board are doing things they aren’t. I might be sincere. I might not be malicious, but the constant hum of my delusion would distract, detract, and in some instances possibly harm people. That’s a bit extreme, I’m just saying the guidance you provided seems to be missing something.

14

There’s always “The non-corporeal spirit vs the dissociative need/advantage of leaving self”

I hear ticket sales have slowed. You might be able to get a good deal if you act quickly…

:slight_smile:

15

But the case you suggest implies accusations or claims about other members of the board. Lekatt just has a position he insists is correct, no matter what others say, but it isn’t a position that involves accusing anybody else of something. Your case would be a potentially dangerous one. His is annoying but not dangerous.

16

Probably because I’m not. I’m not even talking about lekatt at all.

Here’s what I’ve said to you so far, if I may paraphrase myself: (1) that the reason you gave for not believing in a non-corporeal soul — a negative that I would hope you can prove since you assert it confidently — is no better than the sort of reason you demand; (2) that you can prove a negative, complete with exactly the sort of citation you demanded; and (3) that I was surprised you didn’t respond in the same way you demanded that others respond to cites and good arguments and such. But I will add at this point a number (4): that in your discourse with me here, you have gone to spectacular lengths to violate every demand you’ve made.

17

Perhaps he does have a purpose here, afterall: he manages to get almost every single Doper to agree with one another. (Well, about at least ONE thing)

18

I’m either being remarkably dense, or you are making some colossal leaps. Let’s take this one at a time…

  1. I can no sooner disprove a soul than you can disprove Russell’s Teapot - a reason you failed to give. I can’t PROVE the soul doesn’t exist. I can say I don’t see a need for the belief. I can make up a word, create an idea behind it and ask you to prove it DOESN’T exist… that means nothing.

On this point, you seem disingenuous.

  1. I replied to that earlier and I assented to the fact that within the scope of the author or other falsifiable claims you CAN prove a negative. I gave you that much.

Disproving an abstract is not so simple. A person can always just say, “but it’s there” and y’know… how do you keep them from it?

  1. By my reading I see no need for cites on my part. You have now shown a perplexing desire to just pin me on stuff that doesn’t stick. I’ve not seen any requests for me to cite anything. I gave you the “prove a negative” point, because I WAS using it too broadly. What am I to cite then? Some delusional crackpot that says you can never, ever under any circumstances prove a negative? I know that would be wrong. I’m not going to do that. I did, however, quote YOUR citation. To point out that it makes my point in a general sense.

When people want 100% proof - through inductive logic - it becomes… an exercise in futility. And I agree.

  1. I’m not seeing it. I still see no need for any cites other than those already provided.

You are, however, striking a combative tone early, and I knew pitting anything would be dangerous. I’m sure it’s helpful to lekatt that we’re talking about your strawmen rather than them…

Whether that’s your intent or not, I think most reasonable people will see I am talking in good faith and not entrenching. I remain open to seeing that I’m not doing something right, but I’m just not seeing it.

I will, however, continue to press that lekatt issue. The distraction and no citation issue is a real issue. If you press me, I’m pressing the other issue.

The best defense is a good offense - a few trolls and thread shitters taught me that. Never let a thread shitter dominate the debate.

A careful reading of that thread will reveal I comported myself - to a point - well. At a certain point, I feel and felt there was nothing left to do except to point out the species logic of lekatt and deride the lack or rigor or honesty in their postings. I stand by that assessment. If a mod wants to talk to me about something - I remain open to that as well.

Dishonest or just dim - either way, I weary of the threads being shit upon.

19

No one pressed me on it. It’s really just that simple.

The assertion of a SOUL is a positive assertion. The assertion that there’s not a need for it to explain anything is a negative assertion. The onus is most typically on a person saying something is extant, and not as much on a person who is skeptical of something existing.

If I submit that some public personality did something relevant to you, you’d want a link - I’d think. I don’t know you well enough, but I think most would. Particularly if it surprised you - or didn’t gibe with your experiences.

They CAN make that statement. I’ve addressed that earlier. It was not a statement of faith, nor a hypothesis. It was a statement of fact - my statement of fact was a subjective one “don’t see a need to”, lekatt’s was an absolute.

Were their postings limited to the expression of the opinion and a nice bowing out (a vote, as it were) they’d likely have been fine. Instead, it became assert, point at lekatt’s site, clickyclicky!, assert, obfuscate, link site, clickyclicky!, assert, resume death spiral.

I think we’re talking about two different things, but similar enough that reasonable people can disagree.

20

I have zero problem with the plural pronoun. However, just for your reference, lekatt is a he.