Documented Evidence of a Human Threat
Used as evidence to help in the fight against humanity's threat and the threat to our planet
Noah: "I suspect you know nothing about what I like."
Me: "You like Elon Musk."
Noah: "Not even a teeny bit."
This exercise will showcase the humanity predator's (Noah) shameless ability to tell bare-faced lies for the enemy's cause in helping to destroy us, the act of taking sides with our human threat.
It will also be used as a test to see if members of absfg look the other way (a show of uncompromising loyalty) or, as a means to exonerate the member tested from any suspicion of guilt, take great affront at having a foreign enemy bent on humanity's demise, a wolf in human clothing.
The following are comments made defending the man who stands accused of earning personal culpability for his participation in unnecessary planetary abuse, Elon Musk.
By way of analysis, a judgment will be made based on his replies that allow us opportunity to ascertain the truthfulness or falsness of his claim he doesn't like Elon Musk "not even a teeny bit".
Noah: "The awareness of the universe thinks the human race and their precious little planet are unnecessary. Humans do not share that perspective." [words one would say speaking of a planet not their own]
Noah: "His morality says that morality is a bad thing" [revealing inside knowledge: a view of Elon's not published publicly]
Question to Noah: "Are you saying a person is bad if they're hurting the environment?"
Noah: "Doesn't sound like it. That would be a morality." [unable to discern a difference between his mind and Elon's mind]
Question to Noah: "Why didn't NASA have the hypothesis confirmed by the scientific method when they had, perhaps, only one opportunity to do so, namely, seeing if gravity on the moon was 1/6th of the earth's gravity?"
Noah: "It might be that it would be necessary to have precise calculation of the force of gravity to gently land on the moon or escape from it." [defending gross misconduct]
Comment: "The Creator and Owner of a Company bears no responsibility for the damage said Company is responsible for unless the Owner isn't Elon Musk."
Noah's response to the comment: "Oh, he wouldn't be the only exception." [caught trying to rescue Elon Musk from culpability in planet-harming acts]
Comment on Elon's total lack of human concern: "Go ahead and try to figure out some way to make him give a damn."
Noah's response to the comment: "No, no. It is his right." [supports the idea that an earth predator has the right to harm our earth: sides with the enemy]
After Noah reads the document stated above, he replies with:
Noah: "Innocent on all counts. I have never said a word in defense of musk."
My reply: “What I'm predicting is that none of your fellow long-term members will complain about you blatantly lying when it can't be missed other than on purpose. You would be arrogant enough to imagine your word, without any support to legitimize it, could trump the presented evidence everyone can see for themselves.”
All members being examined are approached with this plea:
_____, I'm concerned we may have an infiltrator in the group who is siding with a mastermind engaging in a masterplan to destroy our species (humanity). If you could, I've provided a link to the thread so you can either agree I've a right to be alarmed or to provide an intelligently defensible opinion to why I've misunderstood it and that it is rather harmless and nothing for me to express concern over. If I'm met with no response, your apathy to the alarm I'm experiencing will be justifiably noted as clear evidence you share the same sentiments about humanity as does Noah.
An additional preamble to the plea will be posted at the beginning of the online space any particular member is approached in:
[I will ask each member to look at the evidence and will seek a response from them]
MEMBER JULIAN REGISTERS FIRST WITH HIS VOTE
“I do pro bono no mo”
Analysis of Julian’s response is as follows: The response has two possible interpretations:
1. (unlikely) Refusal to help a fellow human being out of a natural affinity with human beings, instead, needs financial incentive, a reward that is used to do anti-humanitarian acts if it's large enough to seduce the human egoic greed impulse. -- Guilty of having an agency antithetical to human welfare
2. (likely) Using wit to create a diversion that prevents the observer noticing an escape attempt from a question requiring a confession if spoken truthfully, words forbidden by the oath of silence maintained by this particular predatory citizenry. -- Guilty of having an agency antithetical to human welfare
MEMBER NED REGISTERS SECOND WITH HIS VOTE
"It is rather harmless and nothing to express concern over.
A response is not required.
Apathy to the alarm is not justifiable.
Sentiments about humanity are not sentiments about humanity,
but rather are mere 'notions' and flowers of the mind.
First statement can, in all fairness, be buttressed with his last statement.
Alarm can be disarmed if alarm is conditioned by notions and flowers absent of basis for serious consideration or ability to legitimize a motive needed for urgent decision-making.
The third statement is interesting in that he judges himself guilty without any help from myself.
The fourth statement is self-refuted by a logic error [terminal contradiction]
The last statement needs some time to get a correct interpretation. Admittedly, I agree with his description on its nature but, for reasons based on my understanding of our experience as humans on a planet such as the one I've been expressing concern for, I firmly disagree. And now my disagreement needs to have strong justification for it to legitimately obtain majority acceptance.
Though our non-essential self is not absolute, its manifestation is the result of purpose.
What is the purpose? In any gaming environment, if there are different species antagonistic to one another, "defend and conquer" is certainly an important aspect to be appreciated, and to engage in the game's reason for existing is to respect the Creator of the game's ingenuity and creative intelligence, and not disallowing the prospect of being rewarded in some capacity for identifying the inherent goals and achieving the inherent objectives. Ned's attitude could be shown visually if a game player went into his game, sat in a corner of some CGI structure and let the enemy's notions and flowers defeat him.
I'm going to give him a pass. He's a human.
I don't think the enemy has the capacity to transcend his identification with a human-hating species programmed with an aggressive drive to dominate another species' planet.
MEMBER WILSON REGISTERS WITH HIS VOTE
You're always free to think whatever you want.
I don't see Noah as being someone who deliberately wants to destroy humanity,
but he is desperately misguided.
Of course I could be wrong. It's happened before.
First statement is a non sequitur. He wasn't asked whether I'm free or not to think whatever I want [This is a red flag as those who are disingenuous practice reframing the question to one that can be answered much more comfortably].
Second statement is an opinion having no relationship to the evidence that supports the opposite conclusion.[this is one way to guarantee being found guilty. If the member in question has demonstrated a strong intelligence in taking data and making coherent judgments strong enough to sway another person, there is no way to justify any statement he then makes that is this absurdly misguided and against blatantly exposed evidence to the contrary, incorrectly].
No further claims could help him avoid being found "Guilty" of aiding and abetting a predator you'd expect from A fellow predator.
Third statement comes across as a decoy opinion that provides him with the right perception of being out of league with Noah (if Noah's the enemy and I'm butting heads with Noah, I'm, by default, a good guy) but falls flat and impotent when any actual support for his view is absent.
Statement four is an unnecessary statement meant to impress upon people his attitude of humility which he knows has some pull when it comes to convincing an audience that one holds a view with a mature attitude. This optic can successfully win over those who don't actively perform critical thinking on the opinion stated before the mature attitude was actively projected. -- Wilson is found guilty of having an agency antithetical to human welfare
MEMBER LIAM REGISTERS WITH HIS VOTE
My masterplan is to keep on shaking the premises to anything that folk
post on absfg to see if anything comes tinkling down for our mutual benefit.
Is thus my aim destruction?
liaM's not loving, he's dancing! (thus removed from the 'Souled Vessels' list)
Shake shake shake, shake shake shake
You twerk your booty.
It's more than I can take, make no mistake.
You're an electric rattlesnake.
A two fang break all curled up.
Two fang deep, you've got skin to break.
If I plug you in, you've got to shake and bake!
You're all slaves when you hear that sound.
It says: "Dance!"
You're all compelled to rise and thrust, all moving together.
You're all hypnotized with savage lust.
It's some spirit you're possessed by and you can't stop.
You just got to dance.
The final member, Love, has voted with his silence as was stated:
"If I'm met with no response, your apathy to the alarm I'm experiencing will be justifiably noted as clear evidence you share the same sentiments about humanity as does Noah, Defender of the Avenger"
Regrettably, I had to move member Ned into the Threat Box.
I found him doing what all Mad Hatters do: celebrating nonsense.
14 Mar 2022, 12:32:48 (yesterday)
RESULTS ARE IN:
NUMBER OF MEMBERS TESTED: 5
NUMBER OF BODIES WITH SOULS: 0 NUMBER OF BODIES WITH A VENOMOUS SCORPION: 5
FIVE ZOO KEEPERS KEEPING FIVE EYES ON THE HUMAN ZOO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVxxHDx55b0
No comments:
Post a Comment