[fuzztester]

poor logic. there is a contradiction between your second and fourth sentences. can you even see it? i doubt it, since you are the one who wrote it.

go attend logic 101 somewhere, pass it successfully, only then come back to talk. if you fail, don't come back.

[DasCorCor]

LOL! Bringing logic to a risk and uncertainty analysis. Classic cult shill tactic.

[fuzztester]

Strawman, heh:

>LOL

LOL yourself, to the power of infinity!

>"Bringing logic to a risk and uncertainty analysis."

Your word salad doesn't faze anyone, least of all me. And anyway, what do you think "risk and uncertainty analysis" is, except logic? Do you analyse things with your gut or your butt (!), rather than with your nut (aka head)? Pathetic.

As for cults, I have come across more than one, and don't give a shilling for any of them - pun intended, he he.

[fuzztester]

you did not answer my point about the "contradiction between your second and fourth sentences" that I pointed out above in an earlier reply to you.

that means you are moving goalposts, a classic evasive technique used by people who know well that their arguments are not on solid ground. BIG FAIL, dude.

[DasCorCor]

I did answer it. You insultingly changed the topic from cults to logic. I stated that the proper analytical framework for risk under uncertainty is probability, not logic. You didn’t understand the point so you insultingly labeled it word salad. The fact remains that you’re spending your time as an apologist for criminals. It must be hard going through life as a stupid person. I wish you the best of luck!

[fuzztester]

>I stated that the proper analytical framework for risk under uncertainty is probability, not logic. You didn’t understand the point so you insultingly labeled it word salad.

har de har har har :)

pompous meaningless phrases of yours like the one I italicized above, are definitely word salad, and need to be highlighted and condemned as such, you joker. nobody except fake philosophers needs any fancy "frameworks" for such a simple discussion. you are clearly off your rocker. and I say joker on purpose. your stupidity and fakery made me laugh and made my day. is that the only thing you can do in your life, making up meaningless crappy phrases to try to impress or put down people. neither intention worked, dummy and loser. BIG FAILURE, you are.

[fuzztester]

no, you definitely did not answer it. you are an out an out liar. it's a black and white point, there is no grey area about it:

I asked, in an above comment:

>there is a contradiction between your second and fourth sentences. can you even see it?

you did not answer that question. you just tried to evade the topic by talking about cults and shilling for them. I am actually quite aware of cults and am totally against them, because they are fake and exploit people. I even have practical experience of them due to having lived in locations where they existed, though I was not a part of them. I observed them with interest, though, and made some observations and deductions, about both cults in particular, and human nature in general. some of those deductions are applicable to you, ha ha. go figure.

call me insulting? I think you are insulting instead, because you insulted my intelligence by using such a stupid and obvious evasive tactic, of moving the goalposts, and not answering a simple direct question that was asked of you.

so you are not only a liar, but you are stupid and a coward too.

also I notice that you sneakily avoided replying to the factual proof in my other comment, here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40895379

, referencing the Wikipedia article about rajneesh and the Oregon incidents, where it clearly says that he was the one who complained to the US authorities about Sheela and those crimes, etc., and that Sheela was convicted, not him.

I won't waste my time by addressing any of your other points or continuing on this thread, because you clearly are a donkey and prejudiced and have preconceived notions and don't bother to consider the facts.