|
OwlFancier posted:"I haven't a loving clue so Occam's Razor." Occam's razor might be what you're using to complete your world-view (and so is useful), but is it really a scientific principle that produces truth? You don't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the simple explanation is the correct one like you can prove the existence of gravity and the force equation with physics experiments.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Occam's razor might be what you're using to complete your world-view (and so is useful), but is it really a scientific principle that produces truth? You don't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the simple explanation is the correct one. So let's go with anecdotal evidence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:So let's go with anecdotal evidence? My point is that everyone has to accept some anecdotal evidence in order to have a more complete world-view and identity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Occam's razor might be what you're using to complete your world-view (and so is useful), but is it really a scientific principle that produces truth? You don't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the simple explanation is the correct one like you can prove the existence of gravity and the force equation with physics experiments. No you don't, as you pointed out, scientific observation is rarely available to us in political matters because most governments go out of their way to obfuscate investigation of themselves out of paranoia. You cannot know for sure what the truth is, but in the absence of that knowledge, a large conspiracy is even less probable than the simpler explanation of the world being run by a bunch of poorly communicating idiots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
I think it's a rather simple explanation that people will do what is in their immediate self-interest, as well. Yet, some people are more self-less than others. The world is actually really complex in that way, but I do see where you're coming from and thank you for getting this thread back on track a little.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
The Hun is a violent and despicable race. Any notable cultural achievements were either done by individuals that were primarily Francophones or were part of the Austrian court culture, which also sought the emulate the French. "Good Germans" have existed, but what made them "good" is antithetical to "German Culture". We are talking centuries of religious conflicts, military conquests and the worst sort of reactionary despotism that culminates in two world wars and the Holocaust. However, Nazi experimentation allowed for a lot scientific developments that would have been unfeasible under other circumstances, like the use of fluoride to dim the third eye. The West had to make post-War concessions to Germany because of the threat of Communism and the Germans had learned from their military defeats to be a whole lot sneakier. They pretend to be civilized, while the EU is really just a hegemonic plot to take over Europe. Look at how policy is made in the EU. You've got Germany, then France as a junior partner followed by everyone else. The appeasing French follow the German lead and everybody else is forced to go along with German policy. And EU policy basically serves to make its more junior members weaker and impoverished through austerity, thereby discrediting the local governments. While they may seem peaceful, the Hun is on the march.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:57
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Do you have anything to add that isn't an attack on me personally? Get out dick-head. you're schizophrenic
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:you're schizophrenic
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
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? Your question answers itself: anything that's not anecdotal is not anecdotal. Any conclusion drawn from casual observations or word-of-mouth narratives should be considered tenuous at best. Unfortunately, humans are more likely to remember notable experiences than typical ones, so we tend to value anecdotal evidence far more than we should. For instance, I might decide that I've developed a dance that can cause it to rain within the week, and I can even make observations that back up this assertion, but those observations are meaningless if it rains every week anyway. 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 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? You're making a strawman argument. I never said that all decisions should be based on non-anecdotal evidence. I said that non-anecdotal evidence should be discarded when attempting to draw major conclusions. It's okay to form a worldview that does not rely exclusively upon anecdotal evidence; I don't need to conduct a rigorous scientific study in order to decide whether or not I enjoy the smell of lilacs. If I want to conclude that everyone enjoys the smell of lilacs, then using a handful of testimonials is insufficient. 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. This isn't really an argument for or against anything though, you're just making a statement. The first thing happened, and then all of those other things happened. I don't believe that 9/11 was the sole justification for all of that stuff, but it seems likely that it was helpful. This isn't a conspiracy theory. quote: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. What does "the Saudis" even refer to here? Several of the hijackers were Saudi citizens, but some weren't. Does this mean that all Saudi Arabians are responsible? Does it mean members of the Saudi government are responsible? Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, and he was certainly responsible for the attack, and he certainly suffered consequences. Your argument is woefully ill-defined quote: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. Do you have any proof? quote:Four, that it takes a lot more faith in unproven premises to believe the official 9/11 story than to question its truth. You never proved this. You created a bullshit logic tree with ill-defined variables and with nonsensical conclusions. There are two scenarios to consider here Scenario A: - Some terrorists conspired to hijack several planes, two of which were crashed into the World Trade Center towers. Fires and structural damage brought down the towers in a way that is easily proven with basic physics. A third plane crashed into the Pentagon, causing some damage. Scenario B: - Some terrorists conspired to hijack several planes, two of which were crashed into the World Trade Center towers. The towers were then destroyed using carefully-planted explosive devices that government agents spent thousands of man-hours carefully hiding and arming without ever being noticed, and none of the agents ever spoke up. A third plane crashed into the Pentagon, causing no damage at all, and then a stealth missile at a nearby base was fired at the Pentagon, causing some damage. Scenario B is downright implausible. In fact, it takes way more faith in unproven premises to believe the conspiracy than it does to accept that a handful of crazy people hijacked some planes and killed a lot of people. In any case, you have no evidence to reinforce your claim that the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. quote:Five, that Germany is involved with water fluoridation in the United States in a covert chemical warfare program dating back decades. Do you have any proof of this? Do you have anything other than wild conjecture? quote: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. Yeah, arrogant posters like this one: AddMEonFacebook posted:It's clear I own this thread. Conspiracy theories are mocked because they're often based on extremely shaky concepts, and conspiracy theorists tend to reject evidence-based reasoning, preferring wild speculation and anecdotes. The fact of the matter is that conspiracies do happen, but they're not called conspiracy theories when a conspiracy was proven with real evidence. We have evidence that a bunch of guys tried to blow up the British Parliament in 1605. We have evidence that there was a plot to kill Lincoln and several members of his administration. We have evidence that the CIA did a bunch of shady poo poo during the Cold War. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
I cannot.. resist... lizard-sprung brainwaves draw me like a moth to a shitposting flame..  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. 1. Surveillance dragnet was already in place, as was black ops torture and to some extent the expansion of the military. We know the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were initiated on a faulty premise, and that the plans had been kicking around republican desks for some years already, but this doesn't prove a conspiracy. It takes less critical thought to believe in a conspiracy than not to,. 2. What saudis? Not the KSA, though Al-Qaeda has saudi members. Wa'habist terrorists are a colossal embarassment to the KSA, and they eject them from their nation and government, from where they go and do things like join AQ. The connection is tenous, and it's like saying 9/11 happened because Osama wasn't hugged enough as a child. It takes a lot less critical thought to believe something as dumb as a "cult connection", when there is a much more real answer: Financial interest. The saudis and USA worship the same god: Money. They don't need to form a cult, and you thinking so is a good example of wanting to believe disjointed, complicated poo poo for the sake of appeasing the voices in your head. 3. Again, it takes more will to believe stupid poo poo to say they did, seeing as someone already planned it and it wasn't them. I'll grant you that agencies may have known, but how certain can you be when you get an intel rumor that a large attack "may happen", and what do you do about it? 4. No, and you have yet to prove it with anything other than "pee pee doo doo, you're dumb and I own the thread" level poo poo. 5. Again, there is an explanation, and it's not sinister at all: Water flouridation massively improves dental health, and it's added to water and toothpaste in non-toxic levels. You WANT something to happen behind the scnes, but that doesn't mean that it is logical or reasonable in any way. 6. We're being arrogant? All you do is rant about how you own the thread, refuse to explain the reasoning behind your superior intelligence, and telling us to stop making ad-hominems when we're not. You're arrogant (and also insecure).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Not exactly convincing. They say poo poo like, "We found this claim in a book called conspiracy theories, so clearly since it's a conspiracy theory, there is no merit." uh sure... Read more carefully. The article the claim originated in did not cite anything other than one secondhand source who did not say anything specific about concentration camps. A historian specializing in the Holocaust and Nazi medicine doesn't buy it. Burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for this claim. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:My point is that everyone has to accept some anecdotal evidence in order to have a more complete world-view and identity. Does your world view and identity not allow drawing the conclusion of "I don't know" when the available information isn't conclusive? Because personally I would prefer an incomplete world view over a false one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCIqFAdI6eI At any rate, I really enjoyed Robert Anton Wilson's views on these things. As someone who went entirely bonkers and basically bootstrapped his way out of it by way of rigorous philosophy he seems to have one of the most thorough views on the mechanisms involved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m2lwOSsD8A As an aside, I have ingested large quantities of both unflouridated German and fluoridated US tap water, and I can't say I have noticed a difference. That's anecdotal though, so if you can find larger evidence of tap-water-level fluoride ingestion causing any kind of cognitive impairment, show us a link. The most damning thing I could find (in the papers the die-hard fluoride panicmongers were linking to) showed a small cognitive effect on developing brains of infant rats at hundreds of times the relative dosage any human drinking fluoride water would ever get inside their body, which I don't think is very damning at all. Most of the panic seems to hinge on mistaking fluorine for fluoride. OTOH I'm German, and as such am "one of them", no? snorch fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
I think Oswald tried to kill Kennedy but I don't think he's the only person who shot him and that the unreleased documents (not due until 2029) will be heavily redacted if they ever end up getting released.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:I think Oswald tried to kill Kennedy but I don't think he's the only person who shot him and that the unreleased documents (not due until 2029) will be heavily redacted if they ever end up getting released. I think you're insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:I think Oswald tried to kill Kennedy but I don't think he's the only person who shot him and that the unreleased documents (not due until 2029) will be heavily redacted if they ever end up getting released. There is no evidence that anyone else fired at or hit Kennedy. Even the HSCA, who concluded that there was a second shooter based almost entirely on acoustic evidence that turned out to be 100% bullshit, claimed that though there was a second shooter, he missed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:There is no evidence that anyone else fired at or hit Kennedy. Even the HSCA, who concluded that there was a second shooter based almost entirely on acoustic evidence that turned out to be 100% bullshit, claimed that though there was a second shooter, he missed. ~*I just think we're not getting the whole story*~
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I think you're insane. Insane seems a little harsh. I mean ignorant or uneducated, but what about my beliefs is insane? SedanChair posted:~*I just think we're not getting the whole story*~ There are still documents they haven't released. So yeah, basically. I don't think the documents are going to show Cuban involvement or anything, but the theory that a Secret Service agent hosed up seems plausible. VVV An SS agent shooting him would be a second shooter. Peztopiary fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:There are still documents they haven't released. So yeah, basically. I don't think the documents are going to show Cuban involvement or anything, but the theory that a Secret Service agent hosed up seems plausible. What does that have to do with your claim that there was a second shooter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
I think I have worked out the bizarro logic. It's suggested that one possibility is that the government hid the fact that an SS agent accidentally capped JFK. The government presumably doesn't want people to know about this because they suspect people will believe it was part of an internal conspiracy to assasinate JFK. Therefore, the government is undertakes a conspiracy to hide a non-conspiracy to stop people believing in conspiracies. Therefore giving birth to conspiracy theories about what the government is conspiring to hide.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Insane seems a little harsh. I mean ignorant or uneducated, but what about my beliefs is insane? What evidence do you have to support this theory?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:There are still documents they haven't released. So yeah, basically. I don't think the documents are going to show Cuban involvement or anything, but the theory that a Secret Service agent hosed up seems plausible. Please don't run off now that you've proposed this wild theory. Do you mean that a Secret Service agent accidentally assassinated the President? Say exactly what you mean, don't hint vaguely at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Magic bullet mostly. It seems less plausible than someone loving up. *edit*^^^I'm being civil, the least you can do is the same. Yes, I think it's possible that one of the SS agents with Kennedy shot him after Oswald did, by mistake. I don't know if that counts as being assassinated by the SS, I'd argue not. VVV Half the thread maybe. Mostly addmeonfacebook's nonsense and the first dozen pages or so. Peztopiary fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Magic bullet mostly. It seems less plausible than someone loving up. Your knowledge is beneath entry level. There was nothing magic about the bullet. Have you even read the thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Magic bullet mostly. It seems less plausible than someone loving up. It wasn't magic. You would be about as likely to recreate the exact series of uncontrolled ricochets as you would be to reproduce the exact series of winning lottery numbers, but if you have any understanding of probability you will realize why this isn't an argument against what did happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:It wasn't magic. You would be about as likely to recreate the exact series of uncontrolled ricochets as you would be to reproduce the exact series of winning lottery numbers, but if you have any understanding of probability you will realize why this isn't an argument against what did happen. Some experiments using the same rifle, ammo, and ballistic gel models of human bodies have shown that you can actually duplicate the "magic bullet" to an amazingly high degree, including the lengthwise flattening and lead core being squeezed out the bottom of the slug.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
We know Nazis had magic, so an SS soldier using a magic bullet to kill Kennedy is in keeping with their MO. Possibly trained in the ancient art of ninjutsu by their Japanese allies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:37
|
|
Shbobdb posted:We know Nazis had magic, so an SS soldier using a magic bullet to kill Kennedy is in keeping with their MO. Possibly trained in the ancient art of ninjutsu by their Japanese allies? No proud SS man would lower himself to non-Aryan forms of Asiatic magic. He would sooner exude the majestic energy of Thule.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
How would the SS possibly have gotten out of the Inner Earth? All entrances were closed at the end of the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
No gently caress you, you don't get to laugh with us. You've got questions to answer about your own half-baked theories.Peztopiary posted:Magic bullet mostly. It seems less plausible than someone loving up. There's no reason to be civil, you've insulted everyone here by retreading utterly debunked poo poo arguments. The magic bullet thing is common for ignorant conspiracy theorists who talk about ballistics without any knowledge but watering hole pappy incest bullshit. I will admit the "after Oswald shot, an SS man shot JFK by mistake" is a new one to me. Please explain it in detail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Well that's obviously not true. The Soviets were still conducting an active nuclear war on the Nazis in the arctic well into the '60s. I mean, hell, it wasn't until sometime in '89 when the Nazis formally surrendered after the Inner Earth was breached by the Kola Superdeep Borehole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No proud SS man would lower himself to non-Aryan forms of Asiatic magic. He would sooner exude the majestic energy of Thule. I beg to differ. They probably clued in to some Vedic knowledge acquired from the Tibetan occultists they were stashing in Berlin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Insane seems a little harsh. I mean ignorant or uneducated, but what about my beliefs is insane? How do you "gently caress up" and accidentally shoot the president of the united states in the head, while he's in a moving vehicle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No gently caress you, you don't get to laugh with us. You've got questions to answer about your own half-baked theories. You win man. 'Watering hole pappy incest' has soundly defeated my half-baked arguments and I withdraw mortally wounded, all my contentions about JFK for naught. Congratulations. I'm going to talk about the Inner Earth now, maybe. Or maybe something more ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you "gently caress up" and accidentally shoot the president of the united states in the head, while he's in a moving vehicle? IIRC, there was an SS guy several cars back with an M-16. Some doofus "expert" claimed that Kennedy's head wound matched the type of damage you'd see from a 5.56 round as opposed to the Manlicher Carcano's 6.5 mm round. So the agent had poor trigger discipline I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you "gently caress up" and accidentally shoot the president of the united states in the head, while he's in a moving vehicle? And where's the 158 grain lead slug from that agent's .38? e: Oh, we're presupposing AR-15s that nobody in SS used back then e2: ahahahah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And where's the 158 grain lead slug from that agent's .38? Here we go: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Shooting_holes_in_theory_that_a_Secret_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html And there was an AR-15 (as opposed to the M-16 I mentioned): 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Joking aside, I know a guy who served in the CIA during early parts of the Vietnam War who said that members of the Company in that era were firmly convinced that LBJ was behind it all. He kind of half subscribed to it himself (I don't), but it does speak to unorthodox attitudes among spooks in the mid-to-late '60s. It also probably reflects on them a good deal since the CIA isn't known for its support of social progress and all that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:e: Oh, we're presupposing AR-15s that nobody in SS used back then that's why they used them obviously    
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:IIRC, there was an SS guy several cars back with an M-16. Some doofus "expert" claimed that Kennedy's head wound matched the type of damage you'd see from a 5.56 round as opposed to the Manlicher Carcano's 6.5 mm round. So the agent had poor trigger discipline I guess. I didn't think the M16 had been invented then honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I didn't think the M16 had been invented then honestly. It went into military service in small numbers in 1963.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:13
|
|