|
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 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| At some point all thinking people have to accept that we live in an age of Big Lies. No? Can an argument against this even be made anymore? |
Good to see you will be coming along on 9/11 soon, too. |
Nah. I've watched all the videos and read all the stuff and remain solidly on team Official Story, allowing for cover ups realating to government incompetence (not actual guilt). |
And you even read the part about the 9/11 commissioners rejecting their own report, and still believe the Official Fiction?
Sp why in this particular instance would they be telling the truth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
Let me explain in another way why I reject all of this stuff as nonsense. Its because there's a pattern to your arguments that never changes. You can change the subject, which makes you fill in the blanks with different terms, but the pattern remains the same.
The pattern goes like this: You, special person that you are, know the real truth. The accepted experts and/or authorities for the subject are wrong, because they are corrupt and/or evil. You, because you know the truth, are either in a tiny unknown minority or an actively persecuted minority, yet you fight on, telling as many people as you can the special, secret, real truth. You're a rebel, a a rugged individualist of intellect, and the accepted experts and/or authorities in the field, collectively known as The Man are never gonna get you without a fight!
I'm just tired of it. I'm tired of all the scientific papers that I read being supposedly wrong. I'm tired of people who dedicate their lives to research and learning being called into question by Internet hillbillies. I'm tired of the underlying suspicion, the fear, the distrust. Please, take your theories with you into your Montana cabins and keep them safe, safe and far away from me. I've argued with too many of you to care anymore. I'm full up of secret truths. |
The above demonstrates that:
- You understand the foundation for the scientific method is doubt rather than faith [ ]
- You have a basic awareness of US history [ ]
- You understand the difference between "secret" and "ignored" [ ]
- You stick to the facts and avoid gross generalizations because you are a good critical thinker [ ]
- You believe nobody in the developed world with the resources to do so has ever decided to harm or to allow harm to befall others intentionally, except in the case of the prohibition story because it happened a long time ago [X]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PS:
| mateomiguel wrote: |
wow, now sunscreen causes cancer.
OK. |
wow, now cigarettes cause cancer.
OK.
wow, now sex causes cancer.
OK.
wow, now cancer treatments cause cancer.
OK.
wow, now fire-retardant insulation and the wide range of manufactured goods which utilize it cause cancer.
OK.
wow, now gasoline, automobile exhaust fumes, emissions from coke ovens and other industrial processes, waste water from certain industries, cleaning products, detergents, art supplies, and paint strippers cause cancer.
OK.
Anyone in the year 2010 still incredulous about the mere possibility of something being carcinogenic because said something is commonly used or FDA approved ought to ask an adult before attempting to form opinions in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and this thread demonstrates that:
* you believe in rational, thorough investigations that provide answers { }
* you understand that there are a lot more unknowns than knowns in reality { }
* you believe the X-Files was a documentary {X} |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
and this thread demonstrates that:
* you believe in rational, thorough investigations that provide answers { }
* you understand that there are a lot more unknowns than knowns in reality { }
* you believe the X-Files was a documentary {X} |
Ooh, the EPA's list of known carcinogens is straight out of a spooky X-Files episode, huh? Uh oh, I'm aware of the LD50 of cocaine, I must think I'm a "special person" and that only I know the "real truth!" I wish I could do as much thorough research as you, but alas, my "born and raised in Bergen County, New Jersey" hillbilly intellect just can't manage to keep up with all those "scientific papers" you've read but never referenced in making any of your arguments. Because I'm so backwards and uneducated, I have the retarded notion in my head that you didn't actually read any "scientific papers" related to anything we're talking about and that you're just using the phrase in place of "stuff I believe because it sounds normal" to give off a false sense of legitimacy. I guess we can rule out Harlequin ichthyosis as a real phenomenon while we're at it 'cause we're living in the real world, not some Sci-Fi drama, right?
Let me make it clear that you've argued against the validity of primary source documents from the very government agencies and experts you're claiming you get your views from. You don't know anything about the issues you've tried to discuss here. This isn't an insult. You objectively have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what gave you the idea you do know what you're talking about because you and I both know you didn't read "scientific papers" relative to these topics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Let me make it clear that you've argued against the validity of primary source documents from the very government agencies and experts you're claiming you get your views from. You don't know anything about the issues you've tried to discuss here. This isn't an insult. You objectively have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what gave you the idea you do know what you're talking about because you and I both know you didn't read "scientific papers" relative to these topics. |
It always fascinates, astounds, and/or frustrates me that people will espouse opinions on subjects about which they possess few facts, but not only espouse, they insist they are right!
Humans are fascinating creatures! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
It always fascinates, astounds, and/or frustrates me that people will espouse opinions on subjects about which they possess few facts, but not only espouse, they insist they are right!
Humans are fascinating creatures! |
I took a look at the stickied 9/11 thread here and noticed the issue of genuinely absurd conspiracy theories making verifiable facts of an unusual nature covering the same general subject matter seem absurd by association, which I think goes a long way in explaining the attitude you're lamenting. Blatantly wrong claims are often bizarre, which can prompt some to inappropriately assume all bizarre claims are blatantly wrong.
Also, a lot of people seem to have an "ends justify the means" attitude about dishonesty, where they believe they're ultimately right in some broader way and that this makes it OK to disregard or even intentionally misrepresent details until they have a working model of a convincing argument for their predetermined cause. To link this more directly to the topic of this thread, people in positions of authority probably do a similar thing in committing atrocious crimes against humanity while seeing it as for some greater good. Rather than some cartoonish idea of conscious evil, a better view of historical abuses of power is probably that of folks convinced enough in the value of their agendas to feel justified in allowing the consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| I took a look at the stickied 9/11 thread here and noticed the issue of genuinely absurd conspiracy theories making verifiable facts of an unusual nature covering the same general subject matter seem absurd by association, which I think goes a long way in explaining the attitude you're lamenting. Blatantly wrong claims are often bizarre, which can prompt some to inappropriately assume all bizarre claims are blatantly wrong. |
Can you rephrase that, or give a specific example?
| Quote: |
| Also, a lot of people seem to have an "ends justify the means" attitude about dishonesty, where they believe they're ultimately right in some broader way and that this makes it OK to disregard or even intentionally misrepresent details until they have a working model of a convincing argument for their predetermined cause. To link this more directly to the topic of this thread, people in positions of authority probably do a similar thing in committing atrocious crimes against humanity while seeing it as for some greater good. Rather than some cartoonish idea of conscious evil, a better view of historical abuses of power is probably that of folks convinced enough in the value of their agendas to feel justified in allowing the consequences. |
You mean like cops or prosecutors who ignore some niceties of the law because the guy really did commit the crime? I see the distinction you are making, but I am afraid it is a meaningless one.
So 9/11 insiders allowed it to happen because America needed, as previously outlined in the Project for a New American Century, a "new" Pearl Harbor" to convince the American people of the need for a war in in order to achieve "full spectrum dominance"?
Regardless of the motivation, it was evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| I took a look at the stickied 9/11 thread here and noticed the issue of genuinely absurd conspiracy theories making verifiable facts of an unusual nature covering the same general subject matter seem absurd by association, which I think goes a long way in explaining the attitude you're lamenting. Blatantly wrong claims are often bizarre, which can prompt some to inappropriately assume all bizarre claims are blatantly wrong. |
Can you rephrase that, or give a specific example? |
Yeah. I think Mateo came in grouping together easily verifiable facts like Tylenol being the leading cause of liver failure or the revised DSM containing the diagnosis of "Psychosis Risk Syndrome" with nonsense like the lunar hoax theory. The first two examples are weird, as is the idea of a lunar hoax. Because they all have that sense of weirdness in common, I believe that makes it easier for people to dismiss the first two facts even though they're indisputably true and completely acknowledged as such in all relevant sources available, mainstream or otherwise.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Also, a lot of people seem to have an "ends justify the means" attitude about dishonesty, where they believe they're ultimately right in some broader way and that this makes it OK to disregard or even intentionally misrepresent details until they have a working model of a convincing argument for their predetermined cause. To link this more directly to the topic of this thread, people in positions of authority probably do a similar thing in committing atrocious crimes against humanity while seeing it as for some greater good. Rather than some cartoonish idea of conscious evil, a better view of historical abuses of power is probably that of folks convinced enough in the value of their agendas to feel justified in allowing the consequences. |
You mean like cops or prosecutors who ignore some niceties of the law because the guy really did commit the crime? I see the distinction you are making, but I am afraid it is a meaningless one. |
I'm not sure I understand why you might find the distinction meaningless. Because that kind of thinking is just as evil?
I decided to bring up the distinction because Mateo and others have been using the idea of over the top, maniacal laughter, supervillain type evil to satirize the notion of covert abuses of power. I think the interpretation of motive I gave might help to make these authority figures seem more plausible as real life people.
| bacasper wrote: |
So 9/11 insiders allowed it to happen because America needed, as previously outlined in the Project for a New American Century, a "new" Pearl Harbor" to convince the American people of the need for a war in in order to achieve "full spectrum dominance"?
Regardless of the motivation, it was evil. |
That answers my above question. I should've read the whole thing first instead of reading and responding to each section separately.
Yeah, I agree it's about as evil regardless once you get into having scores of people killed or even just allowing scores of people to be killed. My point was more to dispute the notion that no one could be "that evil" by fleshing out a more realistic motive than arbitrary sadism. |
|
| 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
