DISCLAIMER: This CubicAO website doesn't claim to offer any "Cubic Prophecies". This CubicAO site is a secondary, unofficial site that is subordinate to TimeCube.com. This CubicAO site is not intended to be glorified above TimeCube.com. Scientists don't know what gravity is, they don't know what physics is. We must attack the scientists, Academia and religion, or face cannibalism like Easter Island. CubicAO is not intended to be more powerful than Dr Gene Ray's Time Cube site, and indeed CubicAO is separate from Dr Gene Ray's Time Cube site. This CubicAO site is not intended to contain excessive amounts of artwork.
Word-Pedantry is Stupid and Evil
The state wants people to support cubelessness, and as such has conditioned many people in society with closed-minded beliefs. When their closed-minded beliefs are threatened, these people—including Academian pedants and religious zealots—refuse to think rationally.
But aversion to rational thought doesn't necessarily preclude these zealots from accepting rationally derived truths. They could just as well closed-mindedly believe the Truth. Given, however, that the state doesn't want its beliefs to be corrupted or wiped out, it is in fact in its interests to brainwash people with defensive mechanisms.
Rational beliefs can be defended using rationality, but to the extent that a belief is irrational, it must be defended through irrational means. To appeal to rationality, however, these irrational defenses often involve subversive fake rationality. Here, we will see how to avoid such subversive defenses.
It may be that a belief system is partly rational. To the extent that it's rational, it'll be able to hold up under rational scrutiny. But once it has been established that a pedant can't support the irrational aspects of his beliefs, it is likely that his closed-mindedness will cause him to abandon rationality, and resort to subversive tactics.
One such tactic that's quite common, is the "ad hominem" attack, where one tries to discredit a belief by giving the impression that people believe it not due to rationality, but due to unfavourable personal traits. The "ad hominem" tactic is a fallacy, because the content of the actual belief is not affected by whether certain people decide to promote or believe it. If, after an "ad hominem" against proponents of a belief, someone lacking bad personal traits decides to accept the belief, does that change the belief from false to true? No—so again, we confirm that the issue of the people associated with a belief has nothing to do with the belief's veracity.
"Ad hominem" attacks usually arise from a person having an irrational attachment to their beliefs. This lack of objective detachment causes them to become irrationally defensive of their beliefs—and so they initiate a verbal fight with the opponents of their beliefs, using "ad hominem" attacks against them. Furthermore, as well as giving the impression that the opponents have bad character traits, the person may argue that they themselves have good character traits, and that they are an authority. Through their rhetoric, they will attempt to establish their message: "I'm smart and you're dumb, so I'm right and you're wrong."
The best way to deal with irrational "ad hominem" attacks is through rationality—simply give a reasoned explanation of why a statement is "ad hominem", and that it cannot be considered a legitimate refutation of any rational arguments.
Also, the best way to avoid making an "ad hominem" attack is to observe whether the opponent has made any rational arguments, and if they have done so, then refrain from using personal criticisms against them. Instead, rationally refute those arguments that they have made. And if there are personal criticisms that need to be introduced against them, then state those criticisms separately, so that they will not be construed as an "ad hominem" attack of some kind.
Now we can see that people may believe something on the basis of an irrational emotional attachment—this, however, forms the basis for a type of "ad hominem" attack. A person could give the impression that their opponent's beliefs are irrational, by suggesting that they're being emotional about them. They key here is that the validity of the beliefs depends solely on the content of the beliefs themselves, and not on whether the people promoting them are emotional, dumb, biased, ignorant or anything else. You could perhaps make fairly accurate assumptions about the beliefs based on the characteristics of their proponents, but this is no substitute for a legitimate rational analysis of the beliefs.
So again, this "your behaviour is typical of an irrational person" attack is best dealt with by pointing out that it is "ad hominem", and that it doesn't count as a refutation of any arguments.
Another type of "ad hominem" attack is used to prevent an opponent from analysing one's beliefs. It typically suggests that the opponent's bad character traits are preventing them from being rational—e.g. "You're too dumb to understand this", "If you were smarter, you'd agree with me". And a different type of attack is the strawman argument—suggesting that because the opponent made a mistake or was incorrect about a trivial issue, their entire belief system is unjustified. Clearly this is irrational, since a refutation only proves wrong the specific argument it refutes, as well as anything else that is dependent on that argument. For a theory to be disproven, one must refute all of its precepts, not just some of them.
As with "ad hominem", the best way to deal with the strawman fallacy is through rationally showing it to be deceptive. This is achieved by demonstrating that it is a strawman, and clarifying the limit of what the opponent has refuted—that is to say, one should point out the other arguments that have not yet been refuted.
However, another subversive tactic may allow people to protect their beliefs from scrutiny, and to conceal their "ad hominem"/"strawman" fallacies. This tactic involves the beliefs or attacks only being stated implicitly. We may find that a person generates some rhetoric that is fully defensible in terms of what it says explicitly, but which delivers an implicit message that may or may not be justifiable. In this case, it is best to determine what the person appears to be implicitly saying, and restate their message explicitly. Then they will have to either rationally defend their implicit message, or disclaim it.
The final subversive tactic is the same thing that makes people resort to subversive tactics in the first place — mental conditioning, or brainwashing. Through such tactics as forceful assertions, obfuscation, and subtle subject-changes, and through placing great emphasis on anything beneficial to their position and ignoring or playing down anything detrimental to them, and through overwhelming the opponent with so much subversive rhetoric that they are incapable of debunking it all, brainwashing may be achieved.
Ultimately, the prate issuing forth from the Ivory Tower of Babel must be overcome through rationality. Probably it's wise not to expend too much effort in exposing subversive tactics, for it is unlikely that the people using them will be convinced of the truth. They belong to Academic and religious communities supporting the closed-minded beliefs, communities in which they feel secure.
The most important priority is for beliefs to be analysed rationally, and for any subversion inhibiting such analysis to be extirpated. Rational debate can only occur while rationality prevails.
Rationality is not only a tool to fight the burden of irrationality. Rationality has its own innate beauty. If we learn to appreciate rationality, our viewpoint will gain an increased balance—for no longer shall we only recognise the maleficence and perniciousness of irrationality, we will also recognise rationality's beneficence and splendour.
Humans refuse to acknowledge Nature's Harmonic Time Cube - for it transcends, contradicts and debunks their pedantic academic brainwashing, indoctrination and Educator taught Tower of Babble. Nature outlaws word and its gods. Time Cube Truth is Unspeakable.
— Gene Ray, timecube.com/index13.html