Laid Bare!


    stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Share

    The Great Splendini

    Posts : 5055
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  The Great Splendini on Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:45 pm

    if you search this shitbag's name, here's his brief bio:

    Stuart Wilde is considered by many the greatest living metaphysician in the world today. Many of the most famous New Age, New Thought writers and teachers have privately studied with him, or they have been greatly influenced by his work.

    And the prick's got over 15 books under his belt, probably a multi-millionaire for sure.

    And here's one of his blogs:

    http://www.stuartwilde.com/2012/03/red-meat-is-not-good/

    Here’s an article at the BBC about the danger of red meat. The fat and the hormones in the meat are detrimental. You are eating the animal’s terrible fear. So that fear is returned to you eventually.

    Raw food is best, it makes you look younger. Check it out. Stuart Wilde

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17345967

    Raw Foods www.davidwolfe.com

    Please feel free to share Stuart Wilde articles with your friends, social networks, newsgroups, and websites. Word of mouth has helped Stuart Wilde teachings reach millions of people. Thank You.

    Comments are closed.





    The Great Splendini

    Posts : 5055
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  The Great Splendini on Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:49 pm

    The Great Splendini wrote:if you search this shitbag's name, here's his brief bio:

    Stuart Wilde is considered by many the greatest living metaphysician in the world today. Many of the most famous New Age, New Thought writers and teachers have privately studied with him, or they have been greatly influenced by his work.

    And the prick's got over 15 books under his belt, probably a multi-millionaire for sure.

    And here's one of his blogs:

    http://www.stuartwilde.com/2012/03/red-meat-is-not-good/

    Here’s an article at the BBC about the danger of red meat. The fat and the hormones in the meat are detrimental. You are eating the animal’s terrible fear. So that fear is returned to you eventually.

    Raw food is best, it makes you look younger. Check it out. Stuart Wilde

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17345967

    Raw Foods www.davidwolfe.com

    Please feel free to share Stuart Wilde articles with your friends, social networks, newsgroups, and websites. Word of mouth has helped Stuart Wilde teachings reach millions of people. Thank You.

    Comments are closed.


    What we got here? He's begging you to pass along his blog so he can become even more rich with his bullshit.

    Comments are closed because he knows he's a shitbag and he doesn't want people making an ass out of him on his site.

    "you are eating the animal's fear" when you eat meat, he claims.

    completely unsubtantiated unscientific horseshit. he's just pulling that out of his ass and doesn't back it up with anything. it's total horseshit.

    and this prick is a new age guru selling millions of books.

    there's a sucker born every minute.


    The Great Splendini

    Posts : 5055
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  The Great Splendini on Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:50 pm

    sorry, this stuff doesn't really have any interest for anyone on this forum, but i want people to read it when they google this guy's name.

    eventually, i'll start my own site with this stuff.

    i like reading horseshit and pointing out that the authors are lying sacks of shit.

    avatar
    Psioncy

    Posts : 6376
    Join date : 2010-05-02

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  Psioncy on Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:37 pm

    Ask him if you just shot an unsuspecting animal in the head while it was merrily frolicking about and it died instantly, would it taste better? You know, if it was filled with peace and joy at the moment of death?

    Heck maybe he's right. I wouldn't discount the existence of karma so easily. However, at the same time I wouldn't go around making definitive statements about it either -so you're right, it's dishonest.

    New Age stuff runs the gamut. There's lot's of occult knowledge to be gleaned, but a good amount of new agers are more motivated to make themselves SOUND mystic and wise, whether to bilk people's wallets or just because they like being a big shot. Never trust anyone who has the answers. Demand for answers is incredibly high, so it's only natural the movement spawns these types who are willing to expound "truths" out their ass.

    A wise man once said "Don't ask me, how the fuck would I know?"
    avatar
    Psioncy

    Posts : 6376
    Join date : 2010-05-02

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  Psioncy on Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:30 am

    I've been reading a lot of these claims that raw food is healthier, meat is bad, etc.

    In an effort to lose weight and be healthier, I started eating a diet of lightly boiled veggies, tofu, hotpot, salad..

    I'd cheat ocassionally and eat some meat, but I've probably cut my meat intake a good 75%.

    I'd been using a lot herbs, and dousing everything in dark vinegar and crushed garlic, which supposedly have great health benefits.

    The food is actually pretty good once get used to it. And tofu is easy to deal with, keeps well in the fridge, and you don't have to sanitize the cutting board after preparing it, you can just cut it along side whatever else. Also it's cheap.

    However, this oh-so healthy diet has been wreaking havoc on my bowels, I mean I don't want to go into detail, but suffice to say things got pretty nasty.

    So for the past couple days I've just been gorging myself on pizza, and guess what? Everything's back to normal cheers

    I guess the lesson I should take away from this is this: Healthy Food, like anything else, should be consumed in moderation.

    There's nothing wrong with eating a healthy herb salad or some organic tofu dish, but it may do more harm than good if it's not balanced out with some crap food, like a mayo-slathered chickenburger and a can of cheez-whiz.
    avatar
    Psioncy

    Posts : 6376
    Join date : 2010-05-02

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  Psioncy on Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:53 am

    I think that's the problem, people get polarized into two groups. Fat slobs who munch cheetos and guzzle Mountain Dew all day or vegan assholes who look anemic and probably suck dick just for a protein fix.

    Like everything in nature, one should strive for *balance*. So for every herbal tea I drink, I'm gonna down a Pepsi later. For every bowl of organic vegetable soup I consume will be rounded off by a bacon double cheeseburger.

    Hopefully I can find a restaurant somewhere out there that fits this bill.

    The Great Splendini

    Posts : 5055
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  The Great Splendini on Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:27 am

    Psioncy wrote:vegan assholes who look anemic and probably suck dick just for a protein fix.

    yeah, that was my point. i've met some vegans who looks anemic/sickly and then you get these New Age guys saying "Meat is Bad" with flimsy arguments.

    i was forcing myself to eat tofu a while ago because i thought it was healthy. it's not that healthy. and it tastes like shit. i don't eat tofu anymore.

    avatar
    Psioncy

    Posts : 6376
    Join date : 2010-05-02

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  Psioncy on Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:00 am

    Found this article on one of my science forums, thought might be right up your alley.

    Personally I think the article manipulates reason to own ends as well to some degree, but still insightful reading:

    A field guide to bullshit

    13 June 2011 by Alison George
    Magazine issue 2816. Subscribe and save
    For similar stories, visit the Interviews Topic Guide
    How do people defend their beliefs in bizarre conspiracy theories or the power of crystals? Philosopher Stephen Law has tips for spotting their strategies

    You describe your new book, Believing Bullshit, as a guide to avoid getting sucked into "intellectual black holes". What are they?
    Intellectual black holes are belief systems that draw people in and hold them captive so they become willing slaves of claptrap. Belief in homeopathy, psychic powers, alien abductions - these are examples of intellectual black holes. As you approach them, you need to be on your guard because if you get sucked in, it can be extremely difficult to think your way clear again.

    But isn't one person's claptrap another's truth?
    There's a belief system about water to which we all sign up: it freezes at 0 °C and boils at 100 °C. We are powerfully wedded to this but that doesn't make it an intellectual black hole. That's because these beliefs are genuinely reasonable. Beliefs at the core of intellectual black holes, however, aren't reasonable. They merely appear so to those trapped inside.

    You identify some strategies people use to defend black hole beliefs. Tell me about one of them - "playing the mystery card"?
    This involves appealing to mystery to get out of intellectual hot water when someone is, say, propounding paranormal beliefs. They might say something like: "Ah, but this is beyond the ability of science and reason to decide. You, Mr Clever Dick Scientist, are guilty of scientism, of assuming science can answer every question." This is often followed by that quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". When you hear that, alarm bells should go off.

    But even scientists admit that they can't explain everything.
    There probably are questions that science cannot answer. But what some people do to protect their beliefs is to draw a veil across reality and say, "you scientists can go up to the veil and apply your empirical methods this far, but no further". Behind the veil they will put angels, aliens, psychic powers, God, ghosts and so on. Then they insist that there are special people who can see - if only dimly - through this veil. But the fact is that many of the claims made about things behind this veil have empirically observable consequences and that makes them scientifically testable.

    How can science test these mysteries?
    Psychologist Christopher French at Goldsmiths, University of London, ran an experiment into the effects of crystals to explore claims that holding "real" crystals from a New Age shop while meditating has a powerful effect on the psyche, more so than just holding "fake" ones. But French found no difference in participants using real and fake crystals. This was good evidence that the effect people report is down to the power of suggestion, not the crystals.

    Of course, this study provoked comments such as: "Not being able to prove the existence of something does not disprove its existence. Much is yet to be discovered." This is just a smokescreen. But because the mantra "it's-beyond-the-ability-of-science-to-establish..." gets repeated so often, it is effective at lulling people back to sleep - even if they have been stung into entertaining a doubt for a moment or two.

    Do you think mystery has a place in science?
    Some things may be beyond our understanding, and sometimes it's reasonable to appeal to mystery. If you have excellent evidence that water boils at 100 °C, but on one occasion it appeared it didn't, it's reasonable to attribute that to some mysterious, unknown factor. It's also reasonable, when we have a theory that works but we don't know how it works, to say that this is currently a mystery. But the more we rely on mystery to get us out of intellectual trouble, or the more we use it as a carpet under which to sweep inconvenient facts, the more vulnerable we are to deceit, by others and by ourselves.

    In your book you also talk about the "going nuclear" tactic. What is this?
    When someone is cornered in an argument, they may decide to get sceptical about reason. They might say: "Ah, but reason is just another faith position." I call this "going nuclear" because it lays waste to every position. It brings every belief - that milk can make you fly or that George Bush was Elvis Presley in disguise - down to the same level so they all appear equally "reasonable" or "unreasonable". Of course, you can be sure that the moment this person has left the room, they will continue to use reason to support their case if they can, and will even trust their life to reason: trusting that the brakes on their car will work or that a particular drug is going to cure them.

    Isn't there a grain of truth in this approach?
    There is a classic philosophical puzzle about how to justify reason: to do so, it seems you have to use reason. So the justification is circular - a bit like trusting a second-hand car salesman because he says he's trustworthy. But the person who "goes nuclear" isn't genuinely sceptical about reason. They are just raising a philosophical problem as a smokescreen, to give them time to leave with their head held high, saying: "So my belief is as reasonable as yours." That's intellectually dishonest.

    You say we should also be aware of the "but it fits" strategy. Why?
    Any theory, no matter how ludicrous, can be squared with the evidence, given enough ingenuity. Every last anomaly can be explained away. There is a popular myth about science that if you can make your theory consistent with the evidence, then that shows it is confirmed by that evidence - as confirmed as any other theory. Lots of dodgy belief systems exploit this myth. Young Earth creationism - the view that the whole universe is less than 10,000 years old - is a good example. Given enough shoehorning and reinterpretation, you can make whatever turns up "fit" what the Bible says.

    What about when people claim that they "just know" something is right?
    Suppose I look out the window and say: "Hey, there's Ted." You say: "It can't be Ted because he's on holiday." I reply: "Look, I just know it's Ted." Here it might be reasonable for you to take my word for it.

    But "I just know" also gets used when I present someone with good evidence that there are, say, no auras, angels or flying saucers, and they respond: "Look, I just know there are." In such cases, claiming to "just know" is usually very unreasonable indeed.

    What else should we watch out for?
    You should be suspicious when people pile up anecdotes in favour of their pet theory, or when they practise the art of pseudo-profundity - uttering seemingly profound statements which are in fact trite or nonsensical. They often mix in references to scientific theory to sound authoritative.

    Why does it matter if we believe absurd things?
    It can cause no great harm. But the dangers are obvious when people join extreme cults or use alternative medicines to treat serious diseases. I am particularly concerned by psychological manipulation. For charlatans, the difficulty with using reason to persuade is that it's a double-edged sword: your opponent may show you are the one who is mistaken. That's a risk many so-called "educators" aren't prepared to take. If you try using reason to persuade adults the Earth's core is made of cheese, you will struggle. But take a group of kids, apply isolation, control, repetition, emotional manipulation - the tools of brainwashing - and there's a good chance many will eventually accept what you say.

    Profile
    Stephen Law is senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, and editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal, Think. His latest book is Believing Bullshit: How not to get sucked into an intellectual black hole http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

    The Great Splendini

    Posts : 5055
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: stuart wilde, a charlatan and a shitbag

    Post  The Great Splendini on Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:41 am

    I'm not reading this shit at this Un-GOD-ly hour. But i'll check it out later.

    I got some author by the balls. This guy spews "Termninal Madness of End Times" bullshit.

    He predicted in 2000 that by 2007, 2 billion people would be wiped out.

    I sent him a nasty email calling him an evil black-hearted lying sack of shit (I LOVE that expression!).

    He actually replied. I got him by the balls. I really got under his skin.

    I'm gonna fuck with his little head.

    I LOVE fucking with these charlatan assholes.


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:39 am