File: phpsV.swf-(83 KB, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:08 No.1949744
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:19 No.1949760
Please fuck off. Seriously. No one cares about your retarded movement of stupid. Go away.
Honestly kill yourself
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:21 No.1949763
>>1949760
make me fuck off, SERIOUSLY
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:23 No.1949765
look dude i know no one likes me but i really want some friends on my website. i mean we can
really change the world you guys. just please pay attention to me.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:24 No.1949768
>>1949765
thanks zeitgeist
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:25 No.1949770
>>1949765
I understand, but no one wants to help your movement. You're almost as bad as Scientologyfags.
Also if "make me" is the best argument you have you really should kill yourself.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:26 No.1949772
>>1949768
oh yeah your cool pretending to be me
>> [_] Zeitgeist is propaganda sage 04/21/13(Sun)00:27 No.1949773
MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS
MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:28 No.1949775
lol no one will ever like zeitfag
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:29 No.1949777
>>1949770
The argument is already in the .swf file you're commenting on, if you want me to leave make me.
want me dead? murder me :D
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:30 No.1949779
>>1949777
No one will ever read it. Someone clicks it, sees "THE ZEI" and closes it. That's your whole
movement
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:35 No.1949785
OP WHY U POST THIS IN FLASH?
WE HAVE /pol/ FOR POLITICS.
WE ALSO HAVE /b/ FOR RANDOM
/f/ IS NOT FOR .pdf
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:36 No.1949786
>>1949785
He already said why. He's busy being notslim
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:38 No.1949789
>>1949779
TL;DR is not an argument against the zeitgeist movement, it avoids it period.
Scientology critics actually have the balls to read Scientology content and rightfully debunk it.
the Zeitgeist critic websites however cannot escape from ignoring certain arguments zeitgeist
makes, scientific facts, and logical fallacies like ad hominem and appeal to authority.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:39 No.1949792
>>1949789
Actually it is, No one reads this shit isn't an argument, it's just a fact. Sky is blue,
zeitgeist is retarded and no one cares about it. World spins madly on
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:41 No.1949793
>>1949785
Zeitgeist arguments are heavily censored, deleted on 4chan, I'm running through a proxy of course
and verification I haven't found works through proxies.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:41 No.1949795
>>1949789
>guy sages own thing on /f/
>wants people to take him seriously
>mawwige
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:43 No.1949797
>>1949792
censorship and mindless slander or ad hominem still isn't an argument anonymous
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:44 No.1949798
>>1949795
ad hominem still isn't an argument anonymous
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:44 No.1949799
>>1949797
Yeah it is.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:45 No.1949800
>>1949793
I doubt they are censored anywhere other than /f/
and even then its only censored because its a .pdf
Spend the time to make a zeitgeist game that teaches you zeigeistism as you play though the
levels trying to defeat the evil lord xenu. Then post it on /f/
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:46 No.1949801
>>1949799
that's like defending scientology as they censor the term Xenu.net in their net-nanny.
great argument Scientology, censoring xenu and all. I guess xenu.net is TL;DR for scientologists.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:53 No.1949805
>>1949800
generally zeitgeist will not be wanted by the status quo on any board on including /f/ of course.
Anti-politics
Anti-random.
so it won't belong on /b/ or /pol/
and a science board would call a natural law economy which we define as the scientific method
applied to social concern as pseudoscience.
you get people saying "a resource based economy has never been tested" yet they don't know that
they're saying, Science has never been tested.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:53 No.1949807
>>1949801
Nigger what the fuck are you babbling about? Why haven't you killed yourself yet?
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)00:56 No.1949810
>>1949807
ad hominem still isn't an argument anonymous
want me dead? murder me.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)00:57 No.1949814
>>1949810
Murder yourself! Go headbutt a bullet. Get creative! No one will miss you, remember you or mourn
you! blah blah blah ad hominem whatever. Just kill yourself!
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:01 No.1949820
>>1949814
It seems like you don't have the balls to murder me. No such luck, I'm still going to be
spreading zeitgeist spam.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:01 No.1949821
>>1949805
feel free to make zeitgeist posts wherever you want on 4chan. i promise they won't be deleted.
they will, however, be ignored, because what you're pushing is pure crap
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:04 No.1949825
>>1949821
slander: communism with robots, zeit-cult, and the list goes on STILL isn't an argument against
the zeitgeist movement.
Along with with the ad hominem fallacies of course.
You are FAILING to discourage me as have the anonymous in /q/.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:04 No.1949826
>>1949821
Dah dats ad homonim again!
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:10 No.1949831
I remember tolerating to read zeitgeist for the sake of it once a few years ago. The ideas were
boring and tired, hardly leaving a mark. I remember at the surface the argument was almost half
way sound and then it quickly devolved into a joke.
Perhaps you should actually make a political ideology that isn't crap before spamming it
everywhere?
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:12 No.1949832
>>1949831
slander: it's shit, communism with robots, zeit-cult, and the list goes on STILL isn't an
argument against the zeitgeist movement.
>> [_] Ren 04/21/13(Sun)01:21 No.1949838
>>1949832
More like the ZeitFAG movement.
HAHAHAHAHAAH
No seriously, just die.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:23 No.1949840
>>1949838
you're going to have to better than flaming to defeat zeitgeist.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:23 No.1949841
>>1949832
>implying /f/ is the right place to disabuse you of your shitty ideas
>implying zeitgeist needs to be argued against
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:24 No.1949842
>>1949841
baseless slander
oh yes if you're religious then you don't believe god needs to be argued against.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:24 No.1949843
>>1949840
Defeat what? Zeitgeist isn't even big enough to be worth arguing about, it's the simple matter of
you killing yourself because your ideals are shitty, the end.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:26 No.1949845
>>1949843
k I'm dead now ;) I'll never be posting zeitgeist again.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:28 No.1949846
>>1949843
Why won't you die? beneath this mask there is more than flesh, beneath this mask there is an idea
Mr. Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:29 No.1949847
>>1949842
it doesn't need to be argued against because nobody except you and a few other kooks believe in
it. why bother?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:31 No.1949849
This is quite interesting! My good sir
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:31 No.1949851
>>1949847
There are no other kooks. Just one guy with a stolen name
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:32 No.1949853
all you have to do is ignore the spammers, /f/
this shouldnt be so hard
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:32 No.1949854
>>1949849
>>1949846
Totally not same guy
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:33 No.1949856
>>1949847
refusing to argue against zeitgeist means there is absoltely no basis to call zeitgeist, spam,
communist shit among all the other slanderous labels.
Scientology is a cult because there's evidence that backs up that statement.
There are no arguments ANYWHERE which prove that zeitgeist is spam, shit communist propaganda
among the other labels it's given.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:34 No.1949859
>>1949856
No there is proof that it's shit. You're all the proof it needs to be called shit.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:36 No.1949860
>>1949859
ad hominem IS STILL not an argument.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:37 No.1949861
>>1949860
Actually in that case it is. You said there isn't proof it's a shit theory. But you're all the
proof it needs that it's shit, if 100% of it's followers are the kind of scum that you are, then
it is. A+B=C
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:37 No.1949862
>>1949854
actually it wasn't.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:38 No.1949863
>>194986
ad hominem IS STILL not an argument, and it never will be.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:39 No.1949864
>>1949862
You can say 'it wasn't' all you want, but you know as well as everyone else that in that case, it
was a valid argument and not a fallacy. Do you even lift basic language skills mo'fucka
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:40 No.1949866
>>1949864
in b4 it wasn't
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:41 No.1949868
>>1949864
google: ad hominem examples
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:43 No.1949869
>>1949868
No need. I know the definition. it means "against the person" instead of the idea. That, while
insulting the idea, also insulted your dumb ass. Two tards one stone. At me bro come.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:43 No.1949870
>>1949856
>refusing to argue against zeitgeist means there is absoltely no basis to call zeitgeist, spam,
communist shit among all the other slanderous labels.
zeitgeist is spam because it is pdfs on a flash board. /f/ is not for pdf dumps on the same
topic. it is also spam because it is repeatedly advertising for an obscure ideology nobody cares
about, and is annoyed by.
>There are no arguments ANYWHERE which prove that zeitgeist is spam, shit communist propaganda
among the other labels it's given.
HE WANTS PROOF, SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT ZEITGEIST IS SPAM AND PROPAGANDA!!!1 even stupider is that
you seem to expect to find it on /f/.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:44 No.1949871
>>1949869
Zeitgeist is still on 4chan /f/
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:44 No.1949872
>>1949869
But you were only attacking him, and didn't even engaged in the argument, that's ad hominem
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:46 No.1949874
>>1949870
again, you're ignoring the meaning of spam:
"Electronic Junk Messages" -Wikipedia
not completed defined as "unwanted messages"
ad hominem still isn't an argument.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)01:54 No.1949878
>>1949874
>"Electronic Junk Messages"
i went to the wikipedia article, and that definition wasn't there. that aside: are zeitgeist pdfs
electronic? yes. is it junk? yes. is it a message? yes.
>ad hominem still isn't an argument.
again:
>implying zeitgeist needs to be argued against
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:56 No.1949882
lol guys jk my fucking ideology is shit i am master ruseman of all times
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)01:59 No.1949885
>>1949878
Actually it is there:
"Spamming had been practiced as a prank by participants in multi-user dungeon games, to fill
their rivals' accounts with unwanted electronic junk.[20]"
Saying zeitgeist is spam, doesn't make zeitgeist spam.
you can't call something spam, communist, shit, propaganda etc, WITHOUT proof of your claims
otherwise it is baseless slander (appeal to religion or "mob rule")
>> [_] moot ## admin 04/21/13(Sun)01:59 No.1949886
>>1949882
Shut up
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:00 No.1949888
>>1949886
censorship is not an argument.
>> [_] moot ## Admin 04/21/13(Sun)02:02 No.1949890
>>1949888
problem?
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:02 No.1949891
>>1949890
Trolling is not a valid argument.
>> [_] moot ## Admin 04/21/13(Sun)02:04 No.1949894
>>1949891
your mom is not a valid argument
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:06 No.1949896
zeitgeist pls go kill yourself, because that is what weak people do.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:06 No.1949897
>>1949894
ad hominem I won't take seriously.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:06 No.1949898
>>1949885
>Actually it is there:
and then you proceed to quote a passage that doesn't include the phrase "Electronic Junk
Messages," confirming it isn't there.
>Saying zeitgeist is spam, doesn't make zeitgeist spam.
actually it does. if zeitgeist pdfs are unwanted by the vast majority of /f/ users, and they are
posted electronically, in bulk, they qualify as spam
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:07 No.1949899
>>1949896
that's not a nice thing to say, and therefore is fraud.
>> [_] moot ## Admin 04/21/13(Sun)02:08 No.1949900
>>1949897
more like...
you MAD homo-man
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:09 No.1949903
>>1949898
Excuse me, but why don't you go to those 'shoutdawhoop' flash to argue?
Do you not consider it spam?
Because like you said, I do not consider this zeitgeist things as spam.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:09 No.1949904
>>1949899
I'm pretty serious on what i said.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:10 No.1949905
>>1949898
I've seen multiple definitions of spam which appeal to JUNK and UNWANTED.
Your argument is still fallacious as it is appealing to an Ochlocracy or "mob rule".
Not reason or facts.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:11 No.1949906
>>1949904
not being nice is still fraud.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:13 No.1949907
>>1949900
I still haven't taken anything said on this thread seriously considering the ad hominem fallacies
and dodging even thinking about the zeitgeist movement at every turn.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:14 No.1949909
>>1949906
Do you have so much time to kill?
Why you do lead importance to the stubborn ones?
I sugest to not to care
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:14 No.1949911
>>1949907
nobody cares what you're going to say. it's not hard to filter out your zeitgeist spam. And yes
it is a bannable offense according to 4chan administrators. You claim to be using proxies to
avoid banning therefore trying to force this upon the users, justifying this is spam, and treated
as such as any spambot on any other boards.
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:15 No.1949912
>>1949903
zeitgeist is my business as what I'm submitting is being censored as "spam" when the meaning of
spam is rigorously ignored:
Unwanted Junk, not simply Unwanted.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:16 No.1949913
>>1949903
>Do you not consider it spam?
no, why would i?
>Because like you said, I do not consider this zeitgeist things as spam.
you are a minority, or more likely, the zeitgeist troll samefagging
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:17 No.1949914
>>1949911
>>1949909
ad hominem and mindless slander, still is not an argument.
In case you want to forget spam is defined as:
Unwanted junk, NOT simply unwanted.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:17 No.1949915
>>1949912
I understand you, and keep doing your job.
Even if it is just me the one who reads the texts.
Maybe i'm the 99th monkey
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:19 No.1949917
>>1949915
I can take you seriously, thanks Anonymous.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:20 No.1949918
>>1949905
>Not reason or facts.
zeitgeist pdfs are unwanted. that is a fact. they are electronic. that is a fact. they are posted
in bulk (four at a time on a site that gets thousands of visitors). that is a fact. therefore
they are spam. that is reason
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:20 No.1949919
The one time I go into a flash thread and I miss moot
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:21 No.1949920
>>1949913
appealing to ochlocracy or "mob rule" is STILL FRAUD.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:21 No.1949923
>>1949913
Because the 'shouthawhoop' flashes do not give anything more than that.
The Z posts eventually lead to thinking, at a minimum.
>> [_] friendsofsandwiches 04/21/13(Sun)02:22 No.1949925
Hay guyz! whuts going on in this...
*does an xbox 360 and leaves the room*
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:22 No.1949926
>>1949918
again you still want to miss what I've seen spam defined as if you do some digging:
Spam
Send unwanted or junk e-mail
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:23 No.1949927
>>1949914
Doesn't matter what the fuck your definition of spam is.
4chan has an owner and operator and he can as he sees fit.
If he and/or his administrative team views your shit as unwanted it is unwanted, if they view it
as junk it is junk and therefor falls under spam.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:23 No.1949928
>>1949914
>Unwanted junk, NOT simply unwanted.
what is junk is subjective. that said, almost everyone agrees they are junk. why do you think you
get so many "ad hominems" as you call them? because they are junk, and therefore annoy people
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:24 No.1949930
Anyway I'm going now, see you next time!
>> [_] zeitgeist 04/21/13(Sun)02:25 No.1949933
>>1949928
junk is figured out OBJECTIVELY not SUBJECTIVELY.
k, i'm going now see ya
No you can't argue against zeitgeist.
I tried and I became a member of zeitgeist.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:25 No.1949934
>>1949923
>Because the 'shouthawhoop' flashes do not give anything more than that.
why should they have to?
>The Z posts eventually lead to thinking, at a minimum.
what led you to believe the purpose of /f/ is to provoke thought?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:26 No.1949935
>>1949933
junk is objectively defined by the one who owns 4chan.
Shit is junk yo'
Later bruv
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:27 No.1949937
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
this is OP right now
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:28 No.1949939
>>1949777
Don't have to, we'll just smear you.
Make you ideology have a offensive taste in people's mind, make them apathetic to your movement.
Shift the focus towards controversy of your values, instead of the messages of your values.
It's easy to win, welcome to psyops.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:32 No.1949941
>>1949939
>Make you ideology have a offensive taste in people's mind, make them apathetic to your movement.
he's already doing that all on his own.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:44 No.1949950
>>1949934
well you are here just to talk shit or you want OP to think about what his doin'?
aren't you trying to provoke tough?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:51 No.1949951
>>1949950
>well you are here just to talk shit or you want OP to think about what his doin'?
OP is a troll. i don't care what he thinks
>aren't you trying to provoke tough?
not really. i'm just entertaining myself by sparring with an idiot. and even if i was trying to
provoke thought, that wouldn't mean that's the purpose of /f/.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)02:54 No.1949952
These faggots, Homestuck, and MLP is what makes /f/ shit.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:04 No.1949959
can't we they just call it something else? How about something creating like furry no one likes
furry but they still look at it. Or how bout pedophilia people like pedophilia don't they? Fuck
call your damn cult something else. the name you have now makes no sense.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:05 No.1949960
Just stopping by from >>>/q/ to see how buttmad y'all are.
Solid 8/10
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:08 No.1949963
>>1949960
You have no idea how much /f/ hates these people. Zeitgeist faggots spam here all the time.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:09 No.1949964
cp up in this shit plz
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:18 No.1949970
>>1949964
are you retarded?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:25 No.1949979
The entire argument in all of these documents boils down to "artificial scarcity is bad". No
shit. It's going to continue to be the driving force behind the world economy as long as the
profit and power motives exist. What the movement seems to be proposing is taking everyone down
to the same level and then rebuilding on the principles of group prosperity.
Which is completely retarded. In any society that values rational thought the transition from
individual prosperity to group prosperity is a foregone conclusion. You don't need a movement to
spread those ideals. You might need a movement to undermine those ideals in an attempt to prolong
the ideas of individual wealth and power by making them seem unappealing, fringe and
controversial.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:29 No.1949984
>>1949979
>The entire argument in all of these documents boils down to "artificial scarcity is bad". No
shit.
>implying economic scarcity is somehow "artificial," and not a basic fact of reality
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:32 No.1949986
>>1949984
>implying food, water or shelter are scarce in the post-industrial world
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:33 No.1949987
You fags better know to just sage it and leave.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:35 No.1949989
>107 replies
holy shit you idiots.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:45 No.1949991
Yo, zeit guy. How about you develop some SCIENTIFIC MACHINES first, THEN post these later?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)03:47 No.1949992
>>1949986
>implying they aren't
they cost money for a reason, you know
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)04:01 No.1949997
>>1949986
Food faces scarcity due to distribution. If you perfectly knew exactly how much food was
necessary in every part of the world and could transport that amount there constantly you could
eliminate food scarcity.
Water scarcity is a thing faggot. Clean, drinkable water is not a fact of life and in many areas
we still experience regular droughts based on rain fall. Until you can control nature absolutely
there will be water scarcity.
Shelter is arguable. It's expensive to build and maintain and if done poorly you create a worse
problem than before. Creating shelter for everyone is economically feasible. Creating shelter for
everyone that isn't going to backfire is less so.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)04:05 No.1949999
>>1949952
There is maybe 1 homestuck post a week. What are you even talking about?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)04:54 No.1950025
>>1949941
Exactly, I come back and its just full on shitposting in this thread anyways.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)04:56 No.1950027
Wow.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)05:01 No.1950029
gratz you have all been defeated by the zeitfag movement, they got exactly what they wanted.
Well done /f/
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)05:04 No.1950033
100+ posts, wtf /f/
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)05:27 No.1950043
I read all of that shit because 100+ reply's.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/21/13(Sun)06:01 No.1950055
What the actual fuck?
