|
I don't disagree with the assertion that our favorite specimen here has a screw or three loose and would benefit (themself and others) from a bit of mental healthcare. Hell, I like to make armchair psych diagnoses as much as the next guy, but I think in this case that sort of labeling is nothing more than a cheap shot that does more harm than it does contribute to the current discussion. Get real folks, please.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, yeah, we know you're schizophrenic. Question is, do you accept that diagnosis and want to live a better life? Do you have anything to add that isn't an attack on me personally? Get out dick-head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Please state for the record what definition you use for ad hominem. Because you are clearly full of poo poo. nice ad hom and strawman  god i cant explain it to you, therefore I won't. Just trust me, it totally makes sense to me in my mentally-ill mind. AddMEonFacebook posted:Do you have anything to add that isn't an attack on me personally? Get out dick-head. This individual is a case-study of the delusional thinking common to many mental illnesses which heavily overlaps with belief in irrational conspiracies. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Yes. Thank you. It really has degenerated. None of which can be considered evidence for the government causing 9/11. The issue with your ideas is that they're not based on evidence AddMEonFacebook posted:The logic tree I posted illustrates essentially that one has to accept more premises on faith to believe the official story than to question it. The logic tree that you posted was based on complete bullshit and doesn't prove or demonstrate anything, except that you know how to make logical missteps
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:nice ad-hom. You basically bring up something I said forever ago that is actually true. (I was making more of a point of CHEMICAL, not nuclear warfare, which is VERY active) and then the fact that there are literally thousands of nuclear weapons and their threat of being used is very real and scary. You said that nuclear wars are happening right now. You have a real problem with saying sloppy, easily disproved poo poo and then saying "silly sheeple, what I MEANT to say is obviously true." But we don't know what you mean inside your head, even though that might be hard for you to believe, because you are schizophrenic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You said that nuclear wars are happening right now. You have a real problem with saying sloppy, easily disproved poo poo and then saying "silly sheeple, what I MEANT to say is obviously true." But we don't know what you mean inside your head, even though that might be hard for you to believe, because you are schizophrenic. When did I say nuclear wars are happening now? I'm so sick of these strawmans and ad-homs. Only 'snorch' is posting seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:When did I say nuclear wars are happening now? I'm so sick of these strawmans and ad-homs. Only 'snorch' is posting seriously. AddMEonFacebook posted:There is still chemical and nuclear warfare and massive armies, beyond imagining. Obviously you did not intend to say that there "is still nuclear warfare, beyond imagining" but since you are 1) such a terrible writer and 2) utterly unwilling to elaborate on any ideas you barf out we are left to conclude that you meant it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:When did I say nuclear wars are happening now? I'm so sick of these strawmans and ad-homs. Only 'snorch' is posting seriously. Not a strawman or an ad-hom: a person benefiting from an event is not proof of that person causing the event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Obviously you did not intend to say that there "is still nuclear warfare, beyond imagining" but since you are 1) such a terrible writer and 2) utterly unwilling to elaborate on any ideas you barf out we are left to conclude that you meant it. I'm utterly unwilling to elaborate? I'm still here responding to you jerks. Of course I know there aren't active nuclear wars. When you put assumptions on me making me seem that stupid, it's a straw-man. You think you're smart when you make a point against that poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I'm utterly unwilling to elaborate? I'm still here responding to you jerks. Of course I know there aren't active nuclear wars. When you put assumptions on me making me seem that stupid, it's a straw-man. You think you're smart when you make a point against that poo poo? You literally stated that there's nuclear warfare going on right now. It's not a straw-man. He quoted the exact post where you said it. I'm fine with moving on from this since you've recanted. You were either wrong or you made a misstatement or something, it's not a big deal
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I'm utterly unwilling to elaborate? I'm still here responding to you jerks. Of course I know there aren't active nuclear wars. When you put assumptions on me making me seem that stupid, it's a straw-man. You think you're smart when you make a point against that poo poo? AddMEonFacebook posted:There is still chemical and nuclear warfare and massive armies, beyond imagining. Tell us about active nuclear warfare and how German healthcare non-profits caused 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:a person benefiting from an event is not proof of that person causing the event. SCHOOLCHILDREN ENGAGED IN MASS WEATHER CONTROL CONSPIRACY, REAPING BENEFITS OF SNOW DAYS To apply this to the idea that pharmaceutical companies somehow have somehow assisted in instigating wars with the intention of creating new revenue streams, there doesn't seem to be any real concrete evidence for it. Maybe an inkling of a suspicion due to them benefiting the situation. Are they glad about the added revenue? Sure. Did they instigate war in pursuit of that revenue? I don't think so, because I haven't seen any evidence suggesting it. If you've got sources, we can talk, but until then I and most others will call bullshit. snorch fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Can we say there is a person who benefited from 9/11 more than Barack Obama? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Can we say there is a person who benefited from 9/11 more than Barack Obama? Ahmedinejad benefited from 9/11. Maybe Iran assisted with 9/11 since they had an interest?! I'm just asking questions, don't ad hom brah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Ahmedinejad benefited from 9/11. Maybe Iran assisted with 9/11 since they had an interest?! I'm just asking questions, don't ad hom brah. I just said that there are Islamic presidential conspiracies beyond imagining, don't twist my words!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
snorch posted:To apply this to the idea that pharmaceutical companies somehow have somehow assisted in instigating wars with the intention of creating new revenue streams, there doesn't seem to be any real concrete evidence for it. Maybe an inkling of a suspicion due to them benefiting the situation. Are they glad about the added revenue? Maybe. Did they instigate war in pursuit of that revenue? I don't think so. That's a common problem among many conspiracy theories. People who buy into conspiracy theories tend to believe that correlation means causation and that benefiting from something means causing it. It would be like receiving a $100 banking error in your favor and then being accused of hacking the bank. It would be like getting thrown out of a casino for winning a single hand of Blackjack, since obviously that's proof of cheating. Oh, a stock that I own has increased in value? Clearly I'm manipulating the price for my own benefit. Imagine what would happen if, by default, a Vice President was immediately sentenced to death if the President ever died Perhaps worst of all is the tendency of conspiracy theorists to prefer anecdotal evidence over all else. I hate seeing that poo poo, since it basically runs contrary to all of the advancements that brought us out of the stone age
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I just said that there are Islamic presidential conspiracies beyond imagining, don't twist my words!! Hold on now, I think this is based on a faulty premise. We both know islamic conspiracies are no more beyond comprehension than vatican and neo-byzantine conspiracies. Maybe its all lizardmen from Nu-Ur's 3rd moon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Anecdotal evidence is the best. I don't get why you would rather believe what you hear on TV or in school versus what someone tells you first hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Stop worrying about facts and evidence. These are mental distractions that create misery in the holographic projection that is reality. Just be positive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Stop worrying about facts and evidence. These are mental distractions that create misery in the holographic projection that is reality. Just be positive. Dude, you can't tell anyone that you know its all a projection, they start freaking out and then those people come after you because they want to unplug you from the simulation. First rule of holographic projection club is you don't talk about holographic projection club, especially not with girls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Anecdotal evidence is the best. I don't get why you would rather believe what you hear on TV or in school versus what someone tells you first hand. The broad answer is consensus. Multiple corroborating sources giving the same information independently from one another can generally be seen as more likely to be reflecting reality than an individual source, where someone can basically claim anything they want unchecked. How much that applies to TV and education in the US in particular I don't know, suffice to say it's important to keep your sources of information diverse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Anecdotal evidence is the best. I don't get why you would rather believe what you hear on TV or in school versus what someone tells you first hand. Presumably you include "written history" and "sourced evidence" in the category "what you hear at school." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U&t=123s
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Anecdotal evidence is the best. I don't get why you would rather believe what you hear on TV or in school versus what someone tells you first hand. What you hear on TV often is anecdotal, that's why you wind up with people believing that water with some cucumber floating in it results in fat loss. Guys like Doctor Oz push anecdotal poo poo on TV all the time. Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. The scientific method is necessary for drawing conclusions about our world because anecdotal evidence is unreliable. Anyone can come up with something anecdotal, because it's basically just a form of human storytelling arising from the human tendency to find patterns, even when there aren't any. It's also extremely susceptible to confirmation bias. "I drank a can of Sprite and my cold was gone the next day" is not proof that Sprite cures colds, it's anecdotal evidence and you shouldn't expect a can of Sprite to cure colds. I have here a stone that prevents tiger attacks. I have never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must be true! Clearly this is more reliable than trying to prove that the stone actually does or does not prevent tiger attacks, you should just trust what I've told you first hand! Nevermind the fact that no tigers live in my area, I've already proven with anecdotal evidence that this stone repels tigers so you should feel perfectly safe purchasing this stone from me and taking it to the jungles of Southeast Asia to go hang out with some sweet tigers!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Anecdotal evidence is what people used to justify burning other innocent people as witches. Anecdotal evidence is loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Anecdotal evidence is what people used to justify burning other innocent people as witches. Anecdotal evidence is loving terrible. Used to? They still do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
It's like someone is role-playing Cartman on an internet forum. At least he was funny last time, this is too low-effort even for a conspiracy thread.AddMEonFacebook posted:Getting high and staying up all night so I can sleep on my plane tomorrow. Why is everyone else such a huge pussy? AddMEonFacebook posted:a little too post-modern for me. I like to at least try to make sense. AddMEonFacebook posted:It's really only a matter of the complexities of economics that the price of gas is going down. The story is the same. The Bush's and king of Saudi Arabia have been brainwashed by a satanic cult that is controlling US foreign policy and commands the military through its control of powerful leaders. AddMEonFacebook posted:Seriously, go back to you boss at the CIA and tell him to shove a dildo up his rear end. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Used to? They still do. Yeah I've seen those videos. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I'll just continue to label your posts as ad-homs or strawmans until I see one that I think is serious. stop strawmanning our posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:It's like someone is role-playing Cartman on an internet forum. At least he was funny last time, this is too low-effort even for a conspiracy thread. This thread was starting to improve. Stop with the ad-homs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
snorch posted:The broad answer is consensus. Multiple corroborating sources giving the same information independently from one another can generally be seen as more likely to be reflecting reality than an individual source, where someone can basically claim anything they want unchecked. How much that applies to TV and education in the US in particular I don't know, suffice to say it's important to keep your sources of information diverse. QuarkJets posted:What you hear on TV often is anecdotal, that's why you wind up with people believing that water with some cucumber floating in it results in fat loss. Guys like Doctor Oz push anecdotal poo poo on TV all the time. Alright. Decent post for once, finally. What would you consider to not be anecdotal? Only evidence that is gathered through controlled experiments? Doesn't this create a serious epistemological block? Do we naturally rely on anecdotal evidence to construct a fuller model of our world and experiences? AddMEonFacebook fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:This thread was starting to improve. Stop with the ad-homs. Hey I've got a little tip for you, there is nothing in your posts to address but the crazy person who made them, because you have yet to present a coherent argument of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey I've got a little tip for you, there is nothing in your posts to address but the crazy person who made them, because you have yet to present a coherent argument of any kind. Here's an argument: this thread would really suck and be a boring circle jerk if it weren't for me actually being controversial and getting in your puny heads. I've made a good half dozen other arguments in this thread. Not all of them are that great, but seriously, the ad-homs have been ridiculous. AddMEonFacebook fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey I've got a little tip for you, there is nothing in your posts to address but the crazy person who made them, because you have yet to present a coherent argument of any kind. SedanChair, I think there's something deeper at work. I think there's an organized campaign by a Mr. A.D. Hominum at work here. Where is Poirot when you need him? AddMEonFacebook posted:Here's an argument: this thread would really suck and be a boring circle jerk if it weren't for me actually being controversial and getting in your puny heads. A half dozen strings of crazy, when braided together, still compose a string of crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I've made a good half dozen other arguments in this thread. Line 'em up. What are they? If they are real ideas you can explain them in a single sentence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Line 'em up. What are they? If they are real ideas you can explain them in a single sentence. Well really the major argument, and the one that apparently everyone agrees with, is that the United States used 9/11 to unjustly declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan, leading also toward the drone wars in Yemen and Pakistan, the expansion in general of the military, a surveillance dragnet, and a torture program. Two, that the Saudis were responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and suffered little to no consequences. This is because of cronyism and a possible cult connection between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family. Three, the government or a rogue arm like the CIA probably was involved with planning 9/11 or at least several agencies knew about it and did nothing. Four, that it takes a lot more faith in unproven premises to believe the official 9/11 story than to question its truth. Five, that Germany is involved with water fluoridation in the United States in a covert chemical warfare program dating back decades. and six, you're all arrogant and I'm the only one in this thread defending conspiracy theorists and everyone else is being dismissive and rude of possibly important ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:A half dozen strings of crazy, when braided together, still compose a string of crazy. Dude, post your own beliefs so I can call you crazy. This is like the twelveth time you've just called my crazy as an ad-hom attack. I'm fed up. At this point, you're nobody. You have no beliefs or arguments. You must be crazy to care so much about attacking me personally. You don't even know me. I'm more than willing to change my beliefs when I'm presented with strong evidence. Lay it out there. AddMEonFacebook fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Well really the major argument, and the one that apparently everyone agrees with, is that the United States used 9/11 to unjustly declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan, leading also toward the drone wars in Yemen and Pakistan, the expansion in general of the military, a surveillance dragnet, and a torture program. You're loving hilarious, you know that, right? You're good, real good. Lol at the concept of 'just war'; all wars are unjust, that's why they're wars. Pointing that out is useless and does not add anything to the conversation. You think the government is much more coherent than it is. Good for you, there's been a lack of that naive faith in American government since the Vietnamese War. AddMEonFacebook posted:Dude, post your own beliefs so I can call you crazy. This is like the twelveth time you've just called my crazy as an ad-hom attack. I'm fed up. At this point, you're nobody. You have no beliefs or arguments. You must be crazy to care so much about attacking me personally. It's really psychopathic You're a threat to the system, my man. Someone who's Icarian in their thinking and threatens to open the firmament and bring upon holocaust to their house for deigning to touch the sun. Thank god you don't trust the mental healthcare industry, they're our worst enemies in this fight to control humanity and shape humanity into a more just and verdant political ordering. I don't care that you're crazy, I care that you're crazy and lazy. If you're going to go looking for conspiracies, at least learn the officers' lingo My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Alright. Decent post for once, finally. What would you consider to not be anecdotal? Only evidence that is gathered through controlled experiments? Doesn't this create a serious epistemological block? Do we naturally rely on anecdotal evidence to construct a fuller model of our world and experiences? Multiple corroborating firsthand accounts is a good start, though forensic and scientific evidence would trump that. Witnesses are not as reliable as material evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Multiple corroborating firsthand accounts is a good start, though forensic and scientific evidence would trump that. Witnesses are not as reliable as material evidence. Pretty much everything political is going to be anecdotal, it seems. You can't exactly have perfect knowledge and controlled experiments around political situations and world-changing events. You either create an epistemological block and retreat into reductionist scientific models or you theorize and accept some of the anecdotal evidence that you have in order to complete your model world-view and identity. Is there a way around this? AddMEonFacebook fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Pretty much everything political is going to be anecdotal, it seems. You can't exactly have perfect knowledge and controlled experiments around political situations and world-changing events. You either create a epistemological block and retreat into reductionist scientific models or you theorize and accept some of the anecdotal evidence that you have in order to complete your model world-view and identity. Is there a way around this? "I haven't a loving clue so Occam's Razor." Accept that you don't really know anything about what goes on but assume incompetence and stupidity has a lot to do with it, those being rather simpler than grand Machiavellian plots. So, yes the US and other world governments piggybacked on top of 9/11 to bring in more authoritarian control, because people in charge like to do that sort of thing, but that doesn't mean they were bright enough to successfully plan it and perfectly cover it up afterwards. They can be opportunist idiots and still produce the same effect. Or a more small scale version, JFK was probably shot by a nutter with a rifle, rather than elaborately assassinated by an international conspiracy who managed to perfectly cover their tracks. Because a nutter with a rifle only requires one person to just be nuts and be able to shoot, whereas the conspiracy is far more complicated and unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:40
|
|