SYRIA

how do you know that spac eexists HAVE YOU FUCKING BEEN THERE YOURSELF thats whatI thought Q.E.D. bitch now i'm off to the gym

Well since this topic isn't about Syria anyway there is a philosophical argument to be made about "can we know anything?" and all that jazz. And I believe that very young children think only things they can see exist. Like how covering a child's eyes makes it think it is invisible.

So what I'm saying is that bulma is just psychologically on the level of someone under one year of age.

Of course that youtube video is unreliable. But it's fun to watch, which is why I found the OP of the series, and started watching other such videos.



In the case of the sinking of the Titanic, we have enough old people who remember someone who got on it, or remember someone who remembers someone. Of course they could be lying, or crazy (them being old and all), but there are enough old people with relatives that it seems to be plausible. Second, and this is important, there is no apparent axe to grind. The Titanic happened because of an iceberg, the Lusitania... guess who suddenly opts into the Great War?

And this is the key difference between news I believe, and news I don't. News I don't believe is such that I've looked at it from "who would benefit from this news being believed" and there is an answer besides "nobody." And that's the point. Whether it happened or not, the question you should always ask is "who will benefit if this is true/false?" After all, if reports of stock market rise were bogus, that's your actual money you put in hoping to gain.

So what I'm saying is that bulma is just psychologically on the level of someone under one year of age.

No, I'm not. I'm emotionally immature and paranoid, probably.

But I'll be damned if I'm gullible enough to believe something that is obviously selling something.


This is the equivalent of bad news.

It's good to know that politicians are still afraid of 90%. Obama's pretty pathetic too, though. He uses teleprompter as a crutch.

bulma, look up "logical fallacy" some time.

"I don't know anyone who got shot, therefore it didn't happen" is a logical fallacy. And a ridiculous one. Because it is easily disproved.

In science, it is very, very hard to prove something,and usually very easy to disprove it.

Take the statement "all ravens are black."

To prove that this statement is true, you have to find every raven, everywhere, that has ever existed or ever will exist, and they all need to be black. To disprove, you only need to find one non-black raven.

For your statement "the batman shooting wasn't real and didn't happen because nobody knows anyone who got shot" you'd have to show me everyone in the entire world, and they'd all have to say they didn't know anybody who got shot. To disprove it, we only need to find one person who did know someone.

Furthermore, how do you think something like that could be faked? Everyone in Denver would need to be in on it. You shouldn't trust everything you see on the news, but thinking that something like that could be staged is just lunacy.

author=eplipswich
The same could be said about World Wars I and II (which you didn't argue).

Then let's take Hurricane Katrina, the Indonesian Tsunami, the Sichuan earthquake or even the most recent Lushan earthquake, for instance.

There is footage of that stuff though. As stupid as his paranoid view of the news goes, I don't think he would try and say those things didn't happen.

There is no footage of the Titanic sinking or someone getting shot at the Batman movie(I guess).

author=Link_2112

In the case of the sinking of the Titanic, we have enough old people who remember someone who got on it, or remember someone who remembers someone. Of course they could be lying, or crazy (them being old and all), but there are enough old people with relatives that it seems to be plausible.

In the case of that Batman shooting, how do you know that there is nobody out there who does know somebody who was shot there or knows somebody who knows somebody who was shot there?

I'm sure that no matter how wrong you are, you will find a way to put a spin on it so that you sound right.

Well, I don't. It may be true or false. I'm not gonna convince anyone.

My main viewpoint is just this, I look at what people are "selling".

Columbine, this movie massacre, Connecticut shooting. What do all these have in common? What are they selling?

Then it just clicked when I saw the after-effects of the Connecticut shooting. They're selling gun control. And, why are they selling that?

Because a disarmed populace (recall that the background of the 2nd amendment was it arose at a time where the British had heavy taxes, were occupying people's homes, etc) that is further cut off from the ability to connect with other people through the internet through stuff like SOPA (if you think you are the only one that disagrees, you feel isolated and powerless) is easy picking for all manner of bullying.

Dyhalto, I'd be making nothing. Finding out truth in this country is very very dangerous. This country is not as free as you think. Hell, this world is not as free as you think. I'd be arrested for "creating a public nuisance" father than you could say "coverup" and have to deal with this country's plea bargain system which tacks on extra charges in an effort to coerce a guilty plea.

The point, is no, I can't convince you of anything. Question the facts, and decide for yourself.



Keeping an open-mind does not mean "being gullible."

And holocaust deniers are a different class entirely. They're usually the same type as those trying to coverup stuff, rather than people simply skeptical.

author=Link
I bet you know a lot about the Illuminati.

I'm not even designating that with a response (but I will anyway). I've spoken plain English, no conspiracy crap, and you guys still don't see what's plain to your eyes. We simply don't know the facts. Period. In the same way, we don't know the facts of any other news, even to know whether it is true or staged. Because we don't live there and it has nothing to do with us. I have never been in a town where any event happened besides local news (they reported our local church having outdoor procession, that I saw). Making a decision with no facts, and no way of reaching them (yea, you think driving to Aurora would be far, try verifying chemical weapons in Syria) isn't something we should be doing. This is the truth I've been trying to get you to see for the last ten or so posts.

Instead, you insist on playing a stupid game of Strawman, which btw is the worst sort of fallacy. I'm not even trying to convince you of anything (I don't believe in argumentative debate, debate is to introduce and defend new ideas, not force people to accept them). I personally feel we cannot trust our news and am using that story as an example. Look, if you suddenly said "I'm not sure I believe in evolution" would I suddenly try to pin you as "one of those stupid Creationists?" No, because I understand the idea of other people's ideas being personal to them, and not a joke to be laughed at, or taken out of context. People's beliefs are their property, and taking those away is theft. But sure, if you want me to do that, I could find some stupid point and say "you like turtles, I bet you're one of those 40 year olds that still watches TMNT cartoons and has all those nerdy figurines." (This literally is the best I could come up with) Does that feel better? No? So Just Say NO to strawman arguments.
=============================================

There are three distinct news types that I tune out:

• News that is harmless but irrelevant (this includes most human interest stories, sorry)
• News that appears to be propaganda (whether it is or not, we could debate all day, but the point is that I personally hate such news and switch off the channel when I see a common set of stories being milked)
• News that is happening somewhere distant (I don't feel like making a road trip just to verify, and if it happens outside this country but does not affect it, it therefore might not even have any relevance)

(Btw, this includes virtually 99% of all news, meaning the only news I know of has been watched by other people and is secondhand. I tune that out too, because I don't have all the facts. I don't buy newspapers. I've stopped looking at MSNBC. Etc)

Syria is actually potentially in all three categories. Assad is probably somewhere killing people. But he's distant, and since it alone is not targeting us, that makes it the first category of neutral/harmless news. Obama however has turned it into an issue making the second also true. "There are chemical weapons (even though Bush said more or less the exact thing with WMD, and look how that turned out) and we should attack them."

Why? If we didn't attack them, would they attack us? Probably not. Would they counterattack if we did? Probably so. So why should believe this Joker? This is what I'm saying. And it's all I'm saying (I just dunno how to speak properly). Nothing about Illuminati, which is fake. Fake, fake, fake. They broke up in 1785, if something's going on like that, it's not them.

And for God's sake, quit baiting me. I don't have the ability to self-filter (meaning I respond to anything directed at me), and it's currently 4:30 AM my time.

author=bulmabriefs144
Because a disarmed populace... is easy picking for all manner of bullying.

Wrong.
You could remove every gun from the face of the United States and the best tool of revolt will remain in full strength : Mass Struggle. If you want to change any government, no matter how brutal and authoritative it may be, you use general strikes and work stoppage.

If anything, having guns gives people a false sense of security, catering to their desire to bunker down and turtle from real problems.

author=bulmabriefs144
I'd be arrested for "creating a public nuisance" father than you could say "coverup" and have to deal with this country's plea bargain system which tacks on extra charges in an effort to coerce a guilty plea.

This is just a sorry excuse to not do any actual investigative work and buying whatever it is that's being sold to you (the conspiracy theory realm can sell lies too, you know).
If you honestly think a little snooping is going to summon black helicopters carrying freemasonic hit teams to eliminate you, then I don't know what.

I'm in the US military. In the Navy. On deployment. Right now. This situation sucks for me so bad, you guys don't even know.


I can't complain too bad, I signed up knowing these events might happen, but damn, seeing is believing, eh? My own thoughts are that I don't think we should commit to military intervention without a clear long term outline, if at all, which is what this entire scenario has lacked.

Are you saying that the Illuminati comment is a straw man? It was simply a joke, poking fun at your paranoia. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand. I had a friend who spewed the same kind of paranoid ideas as you and he talked a lot about the Illuminati and the impending doom.

Columbine, this movie massacre, Connecticut shooting. What do all these have in common? What are they selling?

What they have in common, is that a human being took a gun and shot a bunch of people. It happened. And it was on the news because it happened. The shooters weren't selling anything. They were mentally unstable and decided to kill people.

What you're suggesting is that the news organizations are making up these stories to support their view on gun control. That is total BS no matter how you try and explain it.

You created, in your mind, this idea of "news is created only to sell an idea, otherwise there is no other purpose for news". When in reality, news is reported and then sometimes used to try and sell an idea. It's only a small number of people who have made up news. Like Hitler during the war, and that was a different time. I don't dispute that unless you were there, you can't know for sure. But when many different sources report the same thing and you see families crying at memorial sites, there is no reason to believe in any grand conspiracy. That is what happened and that is what everyone says happened. You're taking a small negative thing, and calling it the norm instead of the exception.

These days you have independent reporters and people at ground zero taking pictures to let us know what is happening. The main thing the big news organizations are guilty of is picking and choosing which stories they run, and having blowhard panelists discuss their opinions as fact. The stories themselves are true, it's how the news channels put a spin on them that is misleading. It's up to you to decide how much you listen to and believe. It's harder to do that when you have different sides putting their own spin to push their agenda, and yeah, like with the chemical weapons attack it's hard to really know or prove. But that doesn't mean that all news is treated the same and therefore can't ever be trusted.

But enough of that, you go ahead and live under a tinfoil covered rock.

Btw, I'm 29 and I do like TMNT and I do watch the old cartoon and I have a bunch of the old action figures: