Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Dane Accusation of Lying

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660

    Dane Accusation of Lying

    I'd like to submit the following post to see if Dane can prove I was lying. I would like others to join in and judge but please note this is no more than a discussion on whether or not I lied.

    Kronus and I have a working definition of what "lying" means: A lie is when you post something that you know to be false, untrue, or misleading.

    The Claim:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dane View Post
    Your lack of understanding of neurophysiology is not the fault of anybody but yourself. But then I provided you with links that clarified this and you PERSIST in your original, false claims. THAT makes you a LIAR!!!!!
    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...&postcount=252

    Background:

    Dane and I were having a disagreement about when brain waves start. I posted a link showing where my stance came from and Dane posted a link showing his/her point of view on the subject. I disagreed with this link saying it did not refute my claim. I am still of the opinion that my links are not inaccurate.

    It is of my opinion that just because Dane disagrees with does not make me a liar.

    I welcome Dane to show where I knowingly posted something that was false, untrue, or misleading or provide any further details he/she feels I left out.

    Conclusion:

    I would like mainly for Dane to prove this was, in fact, a lie.

    Also, it would be nice (but not a point of this forum) for members to provide feedback on whether or not Dane has a good claim in saying I am a liar.

    Thank you all.
    Last edited by Steeeeve; 02-20-2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason: clarify purpose

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    The purpose of this forum is to have the accuser back up their claim, not to have the members in general weigh in. Dane should support his allegation, then people can comment on how well he's done. We're after facts here, not consensus.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronus View Post
    The purpose of this forum is to have the accuser back up their claim, not to have the members in general weigh in. Dane should support his allegation, then people can comment on how well he's done. We're after facts here, not consensus.
    Well I can ask them to weigh in can't I ? I mainly want Dane to just prove it's a lie but it would be nice to get some independent feedback.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Well I can ask them to weigh in can't I ? I mainly want Dane to just prove it's a lie but it would be nice to get some independent feedback.
    It seems to me that people should defend their accusations first before the general melee begins; that's the point of the forum, right? We want to force people to back up what they say, not just show that a bunch of people do or don't agree with them. What's your take?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronus View Post
    It seems to me that people should defend their accusations first before the general melee begins; that's the point of the forum, right? We want to force people to back up what they say, not just show that a bunch of people do or don't agree with them. What's your take?
    I agree and clarified my purpose. I think it is good to get some independent feedback after the accuser states his or her case. If there is not accountability then it seems the accuser will just repeat the accusation and nothing will come of it. A little public flogging may be a good thing

  6. #6
    Dane Guest
    Ok, here goes. "Brain waves" is actually the graphical representation of interactions between neurons in the central nervous system. It's the squiggly lines showing up on EEG's (Electroencephalograms) which pictorially depict the interactions between the different regions of the cortex of the brain (frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal) and between these and other parts of the central nervous system (limbic system, cerebellum, brainstem etc).
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/003931.htm
    Brain cells communicate by producing tiny electrical impulses. In an EEG, electrodes are placed on the scalp over multiple areas of the brain to detect and record patterns of electrical activity and check for abnormalities.

    The test is performed by an EEG technician in a specially designed room that may be in your health care provider's office or at a hospital. You will be asked to lie on your back on a table or in a reclining chair.

    The technician will apply between 16 and 25 flat metal discs (electrodes) in different positions on your scalp. The discs are held in place with a sticky paste. The electrodes are connected by wires to an amplifier and a recording machine.

    The recording machine converts the electrical signals into a series of wavy lines that are drawn onto a moving piece of graph paper. You will need to lie still with your eyes closed because any movement can alter the results.

    Now lets look at the claim of your source, a claim you obviously didn't fact check:
    http://pregnancychildbirth.suite101....egnancy_week_8
    One of the most exciting new changes is that the first signs of brain waves can be seen! Nerve fibers are beginning to travel throughout the baby's body.
    No actual source is provided, of course, and so belies any claim of a scientific foundation for this claim. But they didn't need to. There is no scientifically peer-reviewed source for this claim. Rather, it comes from: Hamlin, H. (1964), "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, October 12, 113. This is actually not a research article but rather a lecture about measuring when people have actually died. It was a brief background statement, but not peer-reviewed. he did however base this on research from these guys: Okamoto & Kirikae(1951) "Electroencephalographic Studies on Brain of Foetus of Children of Premature Birth and New-Born, Together With Note on Reactions of Foetus Brain Upon Drugs" Folia Psychiat Neurol Jap 1951;5:135-146.

    The research specifically was on hysterotomy abortions where the fetus and uterus was removed intact. And partly, this was done by burying electrodes into the fetal proto-brain. Now, later investigations of this shows no activity at all before 120 days (Niedermeyer & Lopes da Silva (2004). Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields (5th ed). NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) and as such, no verification of the very early research done in 1951 or before.

    Likewise, none of this showed any cortical activity, all obtained through stimulation of the brainstem instead as shown in the only other study on fetal brain and proto-brain activities (Bergstrom, R.M. 1986, Development of EEG and Unit Electrical Activity of the Brain during Ontogeny, In L.J. Jilek and T. Stanislaw (Eds.), "Ontogenesis of the Brain," Prague: University of Karlova Press) which found no activity on regular scalp-electrode EEG until the 25th week of gestation (ie 27th week of pregnancy)

    And that is where my links come in, showing that the coordinated pattern of activities between the different parts of the central nervous system, patterns that finally indicates any form of processing of stimuli, to not possibly occurring until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, when the thalamocortical tract finally connects, allowing sensory input to actually reach the brain's cortex where processing occurs.

    So no, there are no possible "brain waves" before that time.

    The links were provided to [EDIT to correct: Steeeve]who ignored the findings and continued to make the same claim. At that point, with the knowledge that it was not correct, [EDIT to correct: Steeeve] did in fact lie.

    Case closed.
    Last edited by Dane; 02-21-2008 at 11:53 PM. Reason: wrong name

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Dane View Post
    The links were provided to archangel who ignored the findings and continued to make the same claim. At that point, with the knowledge that it was not correct, archangel did in fact lie.

    Case closed.
    You might want to reopen the case and double check the name of the original poster.

  8. #8
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dane
    The links were provided to archangel who ignored the findings and continued to make the same claim. At that point, with the knowledge that it was not correct, archangel did in fact lie.

    Case closed.
    This is just another example of this guys obsession with me. I never even posted on this thread one time, so how could I have lied at all, in any way. What is painfully obvious by reading Danes posts in any thread is that his main defense of any issue is that the other guy is lying.

    What I did find by searching the thread is some interesting evidence of Danes dishonesty as he constantly accused steeeeve of lying in pretty much every response he made to him through out the thread, and also, here, he is adamantly denying that he ever referred to a fetus as a parasite on multiple occasions if you follow the thread.

    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...&postcount=106

    And here he is saying, and I quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dane
    I never said ANYTHING about a parasite. But since you are on that topic, certainly the fetus carries out a PARASITIC FUNCTION in the woman. You can not deny that and be honest.
    Quote:
    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...3&postcount=74

    So how does he then claim that he never made the statement when he admits openly that that is exactly how he views a fetus? Is that being honest in his debate?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    After reading the thread in question, I think there is little or no doubt that Danes accusation was incorrect. Not only is the accusation incorrect (since Dane never actually proves his claim), but it is all part of a pretty poorly constructed straw man. Further, you disprove your own argument and essentially concede the point.

    Steeeve claims that brain waves start at 6 weeks and produces a source to back this. Dane then essentially admits to the measurable electrical activity (which is what brian waves are comprised of) but goes off on a tangent not about whether or not there are detectable and measurable patterns of electrical activity, but rather about whether these patterns necessarily denote consciousness, which is not a claim Steeeve ever made.

    Even here where you try to defend your accusation you fail to do so and are still trying to present the same straw man. You have already conceded that measurable electrical patterns exist as steeeeve claimed, and yet you persist in your argument about consciousness, which has never been presented by the opposition.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    I still disagree Dane proved anything and I failed to see how I am lying about that. Furthermore the source Dane posted here (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/003931.htm) was not part of the evidence displayed in the thread in question: http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...&postcount=231

    Quote Originally Posted by Dane View Post
    I'd also like to point out that Dane simply posted links to articles and did not provide areas of where to look to prove his/her point.

    I agree with Daewoo's view on the matter which I find to be convincing considering he never bothers to get into petty discussions like this.

    I'm not quite sure how we get an official ruling on this, whether it be the admin or Kronus, but I'll look in to it and ask to review.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    313

    Attempt at summation

    It looks to me that the argument is about what “brain waves” are and when do they start in fetuses. Since I think you’re talking about abortion, I’m guessing you’re trying to determine some kind of consciousness or brain activity.

    Steeeeve’s definition seems to be any kind of electrical activity.
    Dane’s definition seems more based on neuron activity.

    Steeeeve says brain waves start at 6 weeks
    Dane says 26 weeks

    Does this sum up the argument?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    It looks to me that the argument is about what “brain waves” are and when do they start in fetuses. Since I think you’re talking about abortion, I’m guessing you’re trying to determine some kind of consciousness or brain activity.

    Steeeeve’s definition seems to be any kind of electrical activity.
    Dane’s definition seems more based on neuron activity.

    Steeeeve says brain waves start at 6 weeks
    Dane says 26 weeks

    Does this sum up the argument?
    Not the argument here. The argument here is that Dane seems to think I am lying while I claim I am not. Whether we have differences of opinions or not is outside this question.

    Regards to the "lying" Dane is claiming he presented evidence was disproved me and then I continued to maintain my position thus lying about it (since I had knowledge of something and still posted something different). I refute this because I don't see how his/her "evidence" said anything regarding my position. Because of this I really can't be lying as this is still what I believe and apparently so do a few members of this forum.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Regards to the "lying" Dane is claiming he presented evidence was disproved me and then I continued to maintain my position thus lying about it (since I had knowledge of something and still posted something different). I refute this because I don't see how his/her "evidence" said anything regarding my position. Because of this I really can't be lying as this is still what I believe and apparently so do a few members of this forum.

    It looks to me Dane gave evidence of what brain waves are and when they start in a fetus. Steeeeve didn't buy it, so Steeeeve is still convinced of his position and is not lying. Readers of the original debate will have to come to their own conclusion on which is right about the topic of brain waves.

  14. #14
    Dane Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    This is just another example of this guys obsession with me. I never even posted on this thread one time, so how could I have lied at all, in any way.
    You didn't in that case, I got the two of you mixed up. I appologize.
    What is painfully obvious by reading Danes posts in any thread is that his main defense of any issue is that the other guy is lying.
    Ah, an ad hominem.
    What I did find by searching the thread is some interesting evidence of Danes dishonesty as he constantly accused steeeeve of lying in pretty much every response he made to him through out the thread, and also, here, he is adamantly denying that he ever referred to a fetus as a parasite on multiple occasions if you follow the thread.
    Correct.


    http://www.4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=300770&postcount=106[/url]

    And here he is saying, and I quote:


    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...3&postcount=74

    So how does he then claim that he never made the statement when he admits openly that that is exactly how he views a fetus? Is that being honest in his debate?
    Acting parasitic, ie. using bodily resources of a person without contributing to that person (otherwise, it would be a symbiotic function) does NOT mean that the "user" is a parasite. So your claim is nonsense.

  15. #15
    Dane Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    After reading the thread in question, I think there is little or no doubt that Danes accusation was incorrect. Not only is the accusation incorrect (since Dane never actually proves his claim), but it is all part of a pretty poorly constructed straw man. Further, you disprove your own argument and essentially concede the point.
    So you didn't read what I wrote.
    Steeeve claims that brain waves start at 6 weeks and produces a source to back this. Dane then essentially admits to the measurable electrical activity (which is what brian waves are comprised of)
    But electrical activity is not the same as brain waves. Did you miss that brain waves are the PATTERNS of electrical activity in the brain. Nerves sending out electrical impulses is not a brain wave. It is the electrical activity of interaction between nerves in the central nervous system that makes up brain waves. I even bolded that part so nobody would miss it.
    but goes off on a tangent not about whether or not there are detectable and measurable patterns of electrical activity, but rather about whether these patterns necessarily denote consciousness, which is not a claim Steeeve ever made.
    where did I talk about consciousness? Your accusation is false.
    Even here where you try to defend your accusation you fail to do so and are still trying to present the same straw man. You have already conceded that measurable electrical patterns exist as Steeeve claimed,
    A flat-out lie. Steeeve claimed "brain waves," not electrical activity.
    and yet you persist in your argument about consciousness, which has never been presented by the opposition.
    And I never claimed anything about consciousness. That's two lies you spewed in your dissection and very poor reading of the evidence I provided. Guys, if you are just going to use these treads to spew MORE LIES, then there isn't much point to this forum at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •