|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Now, I have a question for you.
Let's turn it around.
Lets assume that a large percentage of the general public believe that there is a conspiracy taking place in their government. After careful examination, they discover:
1. they have taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theory has little evidence to support it;
2. looked at the 65%, their opinions, why they hold those opinions, and conclude that the opinions of the 65% are a reasonable interpretation of the evidence;
3. are willing to accept they are wrong because everything (all the evidence) is telling them they are wrong; and;
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest.
What is the responsible thing to do next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
ok. so lets assume the have:
1. taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the 'conspiracy' theory has much stronger support in evidence
2. looked at the 65% and believe they are being misled by bad science and spotty government reports
3. don't want to accept that they are wrong because everything is telling them they are right.
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest
what is the responsible thing to do next? |
Loose ends, we (you and I in our conversation together) are drifting a little bit off topic from the original topic of this thread, but I will try to address your example and your last question:
| Quote: |
| What is the responsible thing to do next? |
1. The next responsible thing to do is to publish. When you publish, you organize your theory and your evidence into a coherent text, that can be read, analyzed and discussed by the public. It is the responsible thing to do next, in that you state a hypothesis publically, present your evidence for it, and make yourself accountable to the public for doing so. Because if your hypothesis is of merit, and you believe your theory is of merit, there is no danger in publishing. That's what professional, ethical investigative journalists, analysts, and academics do.
You can see that the corrollary (sp?) of this is that the irresponsible thing to do is to promote or spread conspiracy theories - or any other theory, for that matter - namelessly, anonymously, on bulletin boards. It doesn't contribute to democracy.
2. The next responsible thing to do is to consider and acknowledge, carefully and honestly, evidence that contradicts and/or disprove your hypotheses, and present that contradicting evidence - evidence that has been honestly gathered by intellectually honest researchers - along with your own hypotheses, so that the public may both judge your hypotheses and information that contradicts them.
The average citizen has a great deal of respect for people who are willing to admit they are wrong. They are capable of separating the error for the person and realizing that a person can be honestly pursuing the truth while making mistakes. But the average citizen has no respect for people who are never willing to admit they might be wrong. It's difficult to trust their intentions, and such people might be deliberately deluding themselves as well as the general public. |
sorry i am a bit drunk. thanks for the reply.
i too agree that that is the correct method.
however that method is limitted to those with resources.
what about the smaller guys? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Now, I have a question for you.
Let's turn it around.
Lets assume that a large percentage of the general public believe that there is a conspiracy taking place in their government. After careful examination, they discover:
1. they have taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theory has little evidence to support it;
2. looked at the 65%, their opinions, why they hold those opinions, and conclude that the opinions of the 65% are a reasonable interpretation of the evidence;
3. are willing to accept they are wrong because everything (all the evidence) is telling them they are wrong; and;
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest.
What is the responsible thing to do next? |
the wise thing to do is move on....accept that the theory is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Solon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solon (Greek: Σόλων, c. 638 BC�558 BC) was a famous Athenian statesman, lawmaker, and Lyric poet. The travel writer, Pausanias, listed Solon among the Seven Sages of the ancient world.[1]
Solon has acquired a place in history and in folklore through his efforts to legislate against political, economic and moral decline in archaic Athens. His reforms failed in the short term, yet he is often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon |
Peter North
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peter North (born Alden Brown on May 11, 1957 in Halifax, Nova Scotia) is a Canadian-born American pornographic actor, director and producer of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. He is one of the most famous male performers in pornography.
Like many pornography stage names, North's name is a pun: "Peter" is a common slang term for a phallus, so "Peter North" most likely refers to an erection. The name "North" may also refer to his Canadian or northern roots. Furthermore, his name "express[es] the controlling man-as-phallus metaphor while precisely articulating the self-abuser's big-phallus fantasies."[4]
North shot to fame with his memorable facials. He is most noted for his ability to produce very large amounts of semen, and for his powerful ejaculations. He has averaged 8-10 ejaculations per climax since the start of his career in the porn industry over two decades ago. Female co-stars like Jenna Jameson confirm his volume of ejaculation to be real, with no movie trickery involved.[5]
Peter North has stated that his ejaculations have always been of a high volume and that he didn't know it was above the norm until he began his career in the porn industry. At the climax of sex scenes, North's ejaculations could last twenty seconds and upwards of a half minute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_North_%28actor%29 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
ok. so lets assume the have:
1. taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the 'conspiracy' theory has much stronger support in evidence
2. looked at the 65% and believe they are being misled by bad science and spotty government reports
3. don't want to accept that they are wrong because everything is telling them they are right.
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest
what is the responsible thing to do next? |
Loose ends, we (you and I in our conversation together) are drifting a little bit off topic from the original topic of this thread, but I will try to address your example and your last question:
| Quote: |
| What is the responsible thing to do next? |
1. The next responsible thing to do is to publish. When you publish, you organize your theory and your evidence into a coherent text, that can be read, analyzed and discussed by the public. It is the responsible thing to do next, in that you state a hypothesis publically, present your evidence for it, and make yourself accountable to the public for doing so. Because if your hypothesis is of merit, and you believe your theory is of merit, there is no danger in publishing. That's what professional, ethical investigative journalists, analysts, and academics do.
You can see that the corrollary (sp?) of this is that the irresponsible thing to do is to promote or spread conspiracy theories - or any other theory, for that matter - namelessly, anonymously, on bulletin boards. It doesn't contribute to democracy.
2. The next responsible thing to do is to consider and acknowledge, carefully and honestly, evidence that contradicts and/or disprove your hypotheses, and present that contradicting evidence - evidence that has been honestly gathered by intellectually honest researchers - along with your own hypotheses, so that the public may both judge your hypotheses and information that contradicts them.
The average citizen has a great deal of respect for people who are willing to admit they are wrong. They are capable of separating the error for the person and realizing that a person can be honestly pursuing the truth while making mistakes. But the average citizen has no respect for people who are never willing to admit they might be wrong. It's difficult to trust their intentions, and such people might be deliberately deluding themselves as well as the general public. |
sorry i am a bit drunk. thanks for the reply.
i too agree that that is the correct method.
however that method is limitted to those with resources.
what about the smaller guys? |
Size has got nothing to do with it, my boy. 
A metaphor I like to use is that of a sword. So you are the small guy, you don't like big government or being made to feel helpless by organizations that are screwing the world. And you are just one person. What do you do? What do you do when the bad guy's swords and weapons are much bigger and more powerful than yours?
The answer, my friend, is to sharpen your smaller sword into a razor. Get really good at analysis, argumentation, fact-checking, choosing your battles, know your subject. FOCUS.
Martin Luther King was only one man. It's amazing how much change the small, but well-focused, activist can bring about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
ok. so lets assume the have:
1. taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the 'conspiracy' theory has much stronger support in evidence
2. looked at the 65% and believe they are being misled by bad science and spotty government reports
3. don't want to accept that they are wrong because everything is telling them they are right.
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest
what is the responsible thing to do next? |
Loose ends, we (you and I in our conversation together) are drifting a little bit off topic from the original topic of this thread, but I will try to address your example and your last question:
| Quote: |
| What is the responsible thing to do next? |
1. The next responsible thing to do is to publish. When you publish, you organize your theory and your evidence into a coherent text, that can be read, analyzed and discussed by the public. It is the responsible thing to do next, in that you state a hypothesis publically, present your evidence for it, and make yourself accountable to the public for doing so. Because if your hypothesis is of merit, and you believe your theory is of merit, there is no danger in publishing. That's what professional, ethical investigative journalists, analysts, and academics do.
You can see that the corrollary (sp?) of this is that the irresponsible thing to do is to promote or spread conspiracy theories - or any other theory, for that matter - namelessly, anonymously, on bulletin boards. It doesn't contribute to democracy.
2. The next responsible thing to do is to consider and acknowledge, carefully and honestly, evidence that contradicts and/or disprove your hypotheses, and present that contradicting evidence - evidence that has been honestly gathered by intellectually honest researchers - along with your own hypotheses, so that the public may both judge your hypotheses and information that contradicts them.
The average citizen has a great deal of respect for people who are willing to admit they are wrong. They are capable of separating the error for the person and realizing that a person can be honestly pursuing the truth while making mistakes. But the average citizen has no respect for people who are never willing to admit they might be wrong. It's difficult to trust their intentions, and such people might be deliberately deluding themselves as well as the general public. |
sorry i am a bit drunk. thanks for the reply.
i too agree that that is the correct method.
however that method is limitted to those with resources.
what about the smaller guys? |
Size has got nothing to do with it, my boy.
A metaphor I like to use is that of a sword. So you are the small guy, you don't like big government or being made to feel helpless by organizations that are screwing the world. And you are just one person. What do you do? What do you do when the bad guy's swords and weapons are much bigger and more powerful than yours?
The answer, my friend, is to sharpen your smaller sword into a razor. Get really good at analysis, argumentation, fact-checking, choosing your battles, know your subject. FOCUS.
Martin Luther King was only one man. It's amazing how much change the small, but well-focused, activist can bring about. |
i agree...thanks for the advice...i will take it to heart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Got two exams to study for next week. Good talking to you...have a good weekend!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Equally indestructible is the movies� idea of the CIA. For years I�ve joked about those films in which some guy would be on the lam from the spooks, and he�d drive and drive and drive, switching vehicles, covering his tracks, but finally at some dusty one-stoplight town in the middle of a vast Kansas wheat field he has no choice but to pull over and risk using the only payphone in the county � and, as soon as he does, somewhere in Langley a light comes on and a computer starts to whirr, and next thing you know the phone booth goes ka-boom, much to the shock of the old guy nursing his cup o� joe in the diner across the street. Yet no matter how much you scoff at the clich�s Hollywood keeps peddling them. The recent Matt Damon movie The Bourne Ultimatum has a moment in which a reporter at The Guardian uses a certain word to his editor. The CIA, it turns out, are monitoring every cell phone in the world, just in case this one word comes up. It�s the name of the top-secret terrorist-rendition and torturing program they don�t want anyone to find out about. So, in an instant, they�ve got a tail on the Guardian man in London. He hails a cab, leans in to tell the driver where he wants to go, unaware that he�s telling the CIA also, because they�ve got a super-sensitive listening device. So they dispatch an asset to liquidate the Guardian problem once and for all. And not just some lone assassin. There�s a whole team swarming a London bus in rush hour. In the seconds before they close in for the kill, more agents appear, to disable the closed-circuit security cameras at the railway station as the assassin squeezes the trigger.
And this entire operation was put together in a foreign capital within minutes.
|
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/668/28/
some of the people on the board really give the US government, and the CIA in particular, way too much credit. The problem with JFK and 9/11 conspiricy theories is that way too many people have kept quiet. Not one person from such elaborate schemes have spoken. On top of that, the US government can't simply not know what is going on all the time. You've really got to think about how competint people in government are. I mean take Rummy for example. While he made a hell of a bueracrat, he wasn't the best defence secretary. Point is, the people carrying on about big government conspiricies forget that people in government are human also, and they are certainly not perfect nor omnicient for that matter.
| Quote: |
| This sensibility is something worse than mere liberal bias. It corrodes reality itself. To the old question �Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin� eyes?�, a nation answers, �You�re right. My eyes must be lying.� For there is nothing so na�ve as a reflexive cynic. |
And that is the real problem with these conspiricy nuts, how can we move forward if some people think the WTC was an 'inside job"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Colbert is a wonderful comic.
I associate his word 'truthiness' with Romanticism: (from Wiki) Many intellectual historians have seen Romanticism as a key movement in the Counter-Enlightenment, a reaction against the Age of Enlightenment. Whereas the thinkers of the Enlightenment emphasized the primacy of deductive reason, Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination, and feeling, to a point that has led to some Romantic thinkers being accused of irrationalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Many 9-11 conspiracy theorists are holocaust deniers. |
can you reference that?...or are you talking out of your ass again? |
You are the one who talks out of his butt.
Have a look
whatreallyhappened
Jeff Rense
American Free Press
Iamthewitness |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| To explain and outline how conspiracy theories are pernicious to democracy and public discourse. |
If you believe this, you don't understand democracy nor public discourse. Democracy demands the questioning of the status quo. Democracy cannot exist without it. Public discourse must include all opinions, with each person having the right, and the opportunity, to dismiss those they wish to. Believing otherwise is to encourage and support fascism/totalitarianism/dictatorship.
Since conspiracies DO occur, your position is all the more absurd. It is basically insanity: you are saying that which exists does not really exist and should not be discussed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| To explain and outline how conspiracy theories are pernicious to democracy and public discourse. |
If you believe this, you don't understand democracy nor public discourse. Democracy demands the questioning of the status quo. Democracy cannot exist without it. Public discourse must include all opinions, with each person having the right, and the opportunity, to dismiss those they wish to. Believing otherwise is to encourage and support fascism/totalitarianism/dictatorship.
Since conspiracies DO occur, your position is all the more absurd. It is basically insanity: you are saying that which exists does not really exist and should not be discussed. |
i agree with you and i think op does too. although sometimes unclear, i think what he is saying is there is a right way and a wrong way.
OP, here is a website that outlines a hypothesis put out by 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth'.
208 engineers and architects support an official investigation of the Controlled demolition hypothesis.
hypothesis and evidence in support is outlined on ae911truth.org
check it out. or watch architect richard gage's lecture at the university of manitoba.
http://www.911docs.net/richard_gage_how_the_towers_fell.php
i think this is the right way. he travels around america lecturing his hypothesis to engineer and architect firms during their lunch break. numbers are growing for support. to suport the hypothesis, engineers and architects have to sign a petition for a new investigation, including CDT. Thier names and adresses are posted on the site in support. They are background checked. details are posted on the site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
2. The next responsible thing to do is to consider and acknowledge, carefully and honestly, evidence that contradicts and/or disprove your hypotheses.. |
I don't suppose you're going to do this anytime soon?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
2. The next responsible thing to do is to consider and acknowledge, carefully and honestly, evidence that contradicts and/or disprove your hypotheses.. |
I don't suppose you're going to do this anytime soon? |
http://www.911docs.net/richard_gage_how_the_towers_fell.php
here's your chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| To explain and outline how conspiracy theories are pernicious to democracy and public discourse. |
If you believe this, you don't understand democracy nor public discourse. Democracy demands the questioning of the status quo. Democracy cannot exist without it. Public discourse must include all opinions, with each person having the right, and the opportunity, to dismiss those they wish to. Believing otherwise is to encourage and support fascism/totalitarianism/dictatorship.
Since conspiracies DO occur, your position is all the more absurd. It is basically insanity: you are saying that which exists does not really exist and should not be discussed. |
You must remember, as deadman so eloquently pointed out, that the OP is only speaking about FALSE conspiracy theories as he made clear in subsequent posts. As such, it has little meaningfulness and so it is just as well that he has signed off on the thread and has gone to cram. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
