Company and PhilosophyJOE Method

philosophical debates and companies.
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4014
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 209

JOE Method

by ABC2019 » 04/11/20, 12:12

Hello
this thread is devoted to some little advice for those who would like to get started in the JOE method (those who follow the discussions know the origin of the name). Personally I do not practice it but I have the opportunity to observe closely and interact with specialists, and I have drawn some conclusions about their methods, the dos and don'ts, the pitfalls. to avoid.

Step 1: choice of subject. This is important, it will condition all the rest. Take the time to think it over, otherwise you risk a big flop. The subject must first be controversial. Don't get into a discussion about DNA transcription or interplanetary navigation, nobody cares. The subject must defy the known laws of science, and have political and societal implications (health, energy). Do not forget, the principle of the method is to launch a subject contesting the scientific and political authorities, it is essential. If you attack a medical minister, for example, that's ideal.

When it comes to content, you have a choice of two extremes. Either you defend yourself from particular properties attached to very simple things, for example water, sugar, carrot juice ... or on the contrary you type in very esoteric things, graphene, vacuum energy, stuff that nobody understands anything about and you can say anything without being contradicted. The important thing is that it is "magic", that it challenges commonly accepted properties. You can take example from what is used by Harry Potter for example.


Step 2: launching the topic. Here again, you have to choose your sources carefully. Do not get into discussions of scientific articles, you will not get away. Prefer youtube videos of at least 30 minutes (that's already a certain filter and you can skilfully launch to your opponents: "Did you only bother to watch the video?") Or websites with endless pages to read. Obviously, keep in mind that you want the controversy, you must therefore choose these sources, it is essential that they attack scientific or political authorities head-on. Especially no measured, contradictory debates, it is not at all the spirit. A minimum of insults and cookie-cutter judgments, accusing the authorities of deceiving us and being in the pay of occult powers, it always works. Big capital is a safe bet. Freemasonry and the international Jewish conspiracy was very fashionable for a while, but you have to handle it with care and I only recommend it to people with some experience, it can be dangerous. Aliens is fun, but you will narrow down your audience.

Step 3: the debate. So here we go into the hard. Your subject will necessarily raise objections and contradictions, after all that's the point, isn't it? : Mrgreen: . So you have to know how to answer them.

Of course, no debates with rational arguments, you get what it is not at all mind. On the contrary, attacking rationality by saying that it is a form of belief like any other, that yes, it is always welcome and it will irritate your opponent. An important point is that it is essential to annoy your opponent as much as possible, so do not hesitate to contradict yourself, to get out of blatant untruths, to then deny that you have said them, and repeat them in the next post, to give definitions which contradict what you have just said, etc, etc .... This is really the basis. NEVER respond to overly factual requests for clarification. NEVER. just loop back the links you posted or others of the same barrel. Above all, do not get into discussions of principle about what makes a speech valid or not. The only thing authorized is the argument of authority: "you dare to question the scientific capacities of Dr Truc or of Professor Machin who said that X". It does not matter, of course, that there are thousands of other doctors or professors who have said that X is from the great portenawak.

Once the discussion has started, it will very quickly extend into pages and pages. After a while, it's good to move on to the second phase: pretending you've already answered the objections, and the other is not listening. Of course, it's not up to you to prove it, it's up to your opponent to prove that you didn't. If it ever gets there, you ignore it. Start again from the beginning, ignoring what has been said.

As the tone will have risen, you will then have enough ammunition to personally attack your opponents. It is of course obligatory to call them trolls, otherwise it is not serious. It is a minimum. After you call them all names, treating them sold, (to the big capital), obstructed, waste of humanity, etc, etc ... there you are happy, it's not the insults that missing. You have reached the point of enjoyment, the primary reason you have tried hard, to unload all your aggression towards the world that has been so mean to you since you were little. Take advantage of it, the internet is a very little controlled place where you can say anything, let go, do not shy away from your pleasure !!

you see that with a little discipline, the JOE method is quite easy to apply and will give you unparalleled sensations, I guarantee it! : Mrgreen:
0 x

Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9907
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: Burgundy
x 416

Re: JOE Method

by Janic » 04/11/20, 13:04

you see that with a little discipline, the JOE method is quite easy to apply and will give you unparalleled sensations, I guarantee it!
we see that you apply it to yourself except that you are on the wrong side.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3526
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 173

Re: JOE Method

by Macro » 04/11/20, 13:15

The Joi method .... Available for free on porn sites .... Will give you pleasure and decrease your aggressiveness ... After ... If you feel competitive ... You have a cock hero ... . The result is the same... : Mrgreen:
0 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1970
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 212

Re: JOE Method

by eclectron » 05/11/20, 09:01

So that's the JOE method ... again him! : Twisted: : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:
ABC2019 wrote:Hello
....


Even if there is some truth in what you say, we can find it all on the net indeed.
ABC method, take a little bit of truth and make it a completely biased thing to your advantage.
its advantage being the survival of its preconceived opinions.


Obviously you do not realize but you are producing a mental construction of safeguard of your character to justify your own shortcomings and your own faults.

Above all, do not question yourself in your behavior and do not ask yourself why we ended up not giving you any more arguments (that we gave before in real life ...) and we ended up insulting you. Simply because we are fed up with your not listening and the resulting bad faith.
By these shortcuts "à la JOE", we save precious time and energy.
It's ugly but it's effective.
The best is to simply ignore you and unsubscribe from the subjects in which you intervene.
0 x
A flower doesn't care who's looking at it
User avatar
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6617
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 525
Contact :

Re: JOE Method

by izentrop » 05/11/20, 09:47

ABC2019 wrote:Of course, no debates with rational arguments
It's totally you on the subject of global warming.
0 x
"Details make perfection and perfection is not a detail" Leonardo da Vinci

ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4014
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 209

Re: JOE Method

by ABC2019 » 05/11/20, 10:23

izentrop wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:Of course, no debates with rational arguments
It's totally you on the subject of global warming.

as I said on another thread, accusing others of applying the JOE method proves nothing, since it is part of the method of accusing others of one's own faults :). We are in the logical circle of "I am not lying", which can just as well be said by a liar as by a non-liar.

The simple accusation of applying it is therefore not proof of anything at all, you have to be a little more specific than that to demonstrate it.

Why are you saying my arguments on CR are not rational? What is my speech on RC for you?
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4014
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 209

Re: JOE Method

by ABC2019 » 05/11/20, 10:27

eclectron wrote:So that's the JOE method ... again him! : Twisted: : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:
ABC2019 wrote:Hello
....


Even if there is some truth in what you say, we can find it all on the net indeed.
ABC method, take a little bit of truth and make it a completely biased thing to your advantage.
its advantage being the survival of its preconceived opinions.


Obviously you do not realize but you are producing a mental construction of safeguard of your character to justify your own shortcomings and your own faults.

Above all, do not question yourself in your behavior and do not ask yourself why we ended up not giving you any more arguments (that we gave before in real life ...) and we ended up insulting you. Simply because we are fed up with your not listening and the resulting bad faith.
By these shortcuts "à la JOE", we save precious time and energy.
It's ugly but it's effective.
The best is to simply ignore you and unsubscribe from the subjects in which you intervene.


there you are at the end of step 3, but it's normal considering the time since which you apply it :).
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9907
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: Burgundy
x 416

Re: JOE Method

by Janic » 05/11/20, 11:28

Just an exercise in style to show that this method can turn against itself. For this only purpose I just modified some points which I put in capitals.
you will see that with a little discipline, the JOE method is quite easy to self-apply and will give you unparalleled sensations, I guarantee it!

Step 1: choice of subject. This is important, it will condition all the rest. Take the time to think it over, otherwise you risk a big flop. The subject must first be controversial. Don't get into a discussion about DNA transcription or interplanetary navigation, nobody cares. The subject must defy the laws known to science, and have political and societal implications (health, energy). Remember, the principle of the method is to start a topic NE contestant Administrative staff scientific and political authorities, this is essential. If you N'attack Administrative staff a medical minister, for example, is ideal.

When it comes to content, you have a choice of two extremes. Either you defend yourself from particular properties attached to very simple things, for example water, sugar, carrot juice ... or on the contrary you type in very esoteric things, graphene, vacuum energy, stuff that nobody understands anything about and you can say anything without being contradicted. The important thing is that it is "magic", that it NE challenges Administrative staff commonly accepted properties. You can take example from what is used by Harry Potter for example.


Step 2: launching the topic. Here again, you have to choose your sources carefully. Do not get into discussions of scientific articles, you will not get away. Prefer youtube videos of at least 30 minutes (that's already a certain filter and you can skilfully launch to your opponents: "Did you only bother to watch the video?") Or websites with endless pages to read. Obviously, keep in mind that you want the controversy, so you have to choose these sources well, it is essential that they N attack Administrative staff frontally from scientific or political authorities. Especially no measured, contradictory debates, it is not at all the spirit. A minimum of insults and cookie-cutter judgments, accusing the authorities of DO NOT deceive us and DO NOT to be in the pay of powers FINANCIAL, it still works. Big capital is a safe bet. Freemasonry and the international Jewish conspiracy were all the rage for a while, but you have to handle it with care and I only recommend it to people with some experience, it can be dangerous. Aliens is fun, but you will narrow down your audience.

Step 3: the debate. So here we go into the hard. Your subject will necessarily raise objections and contradictions, after all that's the point, isn't it? . So you have to know how to answer them.

Of course, no debates with rational arguments, you get what it is not at all mind. On the contrary, attacking rationality by saying that it is a form of belief like any other, that yes, it is always welcome and it will irritate your opponent. An important point is that it is essential to annoy your opponent as much as possible, so do not hesitate to contradict yourself, to get out of blatant untruths, to then deny that you have said them, and repeat them in the next post, to give definitions which contradict what you have just said, etc, etc .... This is really the basis. NEVER respond to overly factual requests for clarification. NEVER. just loop back the links you posted or others of the same barrel. Above all, do not get into discussions of principle about what makes a speech valid or not. The only thing authorized is the argument of authority: "you dare to question the scientific capacities of Dr Truc or of Professor Machin who said that X". It does not matter, of course, that there are thousands of other doctors or professors who have said that X is from the great portenawak.

Once the discussion has started, it will very quickly extend into pages and pages. After a while, it's good to move on to the second phase: pretending you've already answered the objections, and the other is not listening. Of course, it's not up to you to prove it, it's up to your opponent to prove that you didn't. If it ever gets there, you ignore it. Start again from the beginning, ignoring what has been said.

As the tone will have risen, you will then have enough ammunition to personally attack your opponents. It is of course obligatory to call them trolls, otherwise it is not serious. It is a minimum. After you call them all names, treating them sold, (to the big capital), obstructed, waste of humanity, etc, etc ... there you are happy, it's not the insults that missing. You have reached the point of enjoyment, the primary reason you have tried hard, to unload all your aggression towards the world that has been so mean to you since you were little. Take advantage of it, the internet is a very little controlled place where you can say anything, let go, do not shy away from your pleasure !!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1970
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 212

Re: JOE Method

by eclectron » 05/11/20, 12:28

eclectron method : Mrgreen: , step 4): no longer waste time with human bullshit, identified as being in a loop, no longer waste time in front of bullshit bunkers, impervious to any evolution.
Of course, it does some cleaning, I identified 4.
which confirms that step 4 is well named! : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

Troll, is a good qualifier too ...
there are 5 letters, so I may have a free place ... : Wink:
0 x
A flower doesn't care who's looking at it
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4014
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 209

Re: JOE Method

by ABC2019 » 05/11/20, 12:47

Janic wrote:Just an exercise in style to show that this method can turn against itself. For this only purpose I just modified some points which I put in capitals.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "this method can turn against itself", by describing another method; ..
so we don't know which of the two you find the best.
On the fact of attacking or not the scientific authorities, for me I am comfortable on that, because I believe that sometimes it is justified and others not. The important thing is to stick to scientific rigor, and it does not always give the same result. For example, I find that Raoult's speech lacks scientific rigor (and here I am rather in agreement with the authorities), but I find that the speech on the dangers of CR also lacks scientific rigor (and here I rather disagree ). I am not saying that I am necessarily right, but just that I am not biased by this criterion.

But the JOE method is much more than just attacking the dominant belief, it's also everything else that I've described and that you haven't changed.
0 x


Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 10 guests