We're so far off topic here that normally I'd just shake my head and marvel at the human mind's ability to distort its view of the world to the notions it's fond of, but...
...screw it. I'm going to go walk some dogs before it gets dark and marvel at the human mind's ability to distort its view of the world to the notions it's fond of.
On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
We're so far off topic here that normally I'd just shake my head and marvel at the human mind's ability to distort its view of the world to the notions it's fond of, but...
...screw it. I'm going to go walk some dogs before it gets dark and marvel at the human mind's ability to distort its view of the world to the notions it's fond of.
Your history is a bit wobbly here. OK, it's crap. Couldn't find a single reference for anyone being punished for saying the earth is round. That doesn't mean it never happened (can't prove a negative!) but the burden of proof on that is on you.
What matters here is that there can be many claims about what is true, but there is an actual underlying truth. You're welcome to question anything but realize that those questions often have actual answers. Answers that can be verified.
What exactly does "legitimate" mean in this context? A question in good faith is always honest. It's a request to relieve ignorance, and we there is no higher authority on what you know (or don't, or don't understand) than you.
And no one is stopping you from asking questions. No one is stopping you from spouting bullshit. Calling you on it does not oppress you, it can only silence you out of shame. And after four years in office you're still a Trump supporter so really how likely is that?
If you can actually define a term like NWO (I assume that means new world order) we can discuss whether there is any such thing or not. While I hear it complained about often I never see a definition, just a list of (generally fictitious, often massively ignorant) grievances. So go ahead: define this...thing. Concept. Conspiracy. Whatever. Just be aware that you get to prove it exists/has the characteristics you claim because no one can prove a negative.
Hunter Biden's laptop is the same physical object it always was, the stories about it have changed. And no, the NYT did not publish a mea culpa (means "my fault" in Latin)âthey just sort of admitted that the Post's story about it wasn't Russian disinformation. They have zero interest in exposing their own bias or investigating any implications of its contents, or in apologizing for their part in covering the story up.
And what looks to you like a conspiracy, a coordinated plan to suppress the story, is something far more dangerous: consensus. Conspiracies have conspirators. They can be caught, exposed, and ridiculed...and they grow old and die. With them dies the conspiracy. A consensus is far more durable. It can last generations.
There are still people who believe the moon landings were faked 50 years on. William Kaysing, the dude usually credited with starting that hoax, is long deadâbut there are fresh adherents to his story every day.* You can still buy freshly-printed copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, even tho the people who first pitched the thing have been dead over a century. It doesn't take a cabal of active conspirators to keep an idea alive, it just takes people willing to fall for a story.
And the people who run the NYT (and Facebook and Twitter and most of the news media) had developed a consensus: any story brought forth by Rudy Giulliani that cast the candidate they were pulling for in an unfavorable light was probably fake. And they had ample reason to be suspicious; add a few anonymous quotes from someone in an intelligence agency (or someone adjacent to an intelligence agency, or someone who used to work for one and is now a consultant who will tell them what they want to know and who swears it's true because he knows a guy) and a lazy reporter has a story. And everybody who doesn't have a better source (which is everybody, because nobody really has a source) just follows along, assuming that the NYT just beat them to it.
As for Hunter Biden's laptop being some sort of factual kryptonite that would have reversed the 2020 election...dream on. It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already have ample evidence for. It isn't going to change anyone's mind about who they voted for. After all, Trump had two sons every bit as sleazy as Hunter Biden, involved in just as many sleazy schemes. It does not magically make Donald F#cking Trump a man of upstanding character or honesty or magically make his record better.
On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
There are two sides to the story regarding the earth being round or flat. Only in the past 500 or so years in the long / short history of humankind was the earth determined to be round. Before then it was officially flat and anyone who thought otherwise publicly was considered a blasphemer with the appropriate penalties of imprisonment, torture and even death. And this is with a physical thing.
There usually is at least two perspectives on nearly everything and until proven otherwise, they are both legitimate in their own rights. We evolve and expand or understanding of things with the very question, what if? Without asking that question, we stagnate and stop evolving and only by pure chance or accident do we make new discoveries. To stop all
conversations that start with what if is a disservice to the public interest. The plausible is worthy of discussion and conjecture. The most recent example of this would be the NWO.
The NWO, long denied as nothing more than a paranoid delusion of extreme conspiracy theorists is now out in the open, acknowledged and being put into action. The turnaround time between a CT and reality has gone from 10 years to a matter of months.
Hunter Biden's laptop has gone from a Russian disinformation CT to reality since the election when one of the official arbiters of truth, the NYT, has finally come out and issued a mea culpa. I was dissed here for thinking and saying it was real. Too bad it was willfully suppressed by the fact checkers in order to affect the results of an election, but it did happen that way. Lazy8 posted the mea culpa and everyone just ignored it as if it doesn't matter. Same as right now ...
Lastly, the Biden enterprise has survived so far by maintaining the policy and cover of plausibledeniability. Which in the case of Hunter's laptop, it was Russian disinformation. That plausibility was the result of conditioning by the media and fact checkers, et al.
Your history is a bit wobbly here. OK, it's crap. Couldn't find a single reference for anyone being punished for saying the earth is round. That doesn't mean it never happened (can't prove a negative!) but the burden of proof on that is on you.
What matters here is that there can be many claims about what is true, but there is an actual underlying truth. You're welcome to question anything but realize that those questions often have actual answers. Answers that can be verified.
What exactly does "legitimate" mean in this context? A question in good faith is always honest. It's a request to relieve ignorance, and we there is no higher authority on what you know (or don't, or don't understand) than you.
And no one is stopping you from asking questions. No one is stopping you from spouting bullshit. Calling you on it does not oppress you, it can only silence you out of shame. And after four years in office you're still a Trump supporter so really how likely is that?
If you can actually define a term like NWO (I assume that means new world order) we can discuss whether there is any such thing or not. While I hear it complained about often I never see a definition, just a list of (generally fictitious, often massively ignorant) grievances. So go ahead: define this...thing. Concept. Conspiracy. Whatever. Just be aware that you get to prove it exists/has the characteristics you claim because no one can prove a negative.
Hunter Biden's laptop is the same physical object it always was, the stories about it have changed. And no, the NYT did not publish a mea culpa (means "my fault" in Latin)—they just sort of admitted that the Post's story about it wasn't Russian disinformation. They have zero interest in exposing their own bias or investigating any implications of its contents, or in apologizing for their part in covering the story up.
And what looks to you like a conspiracy, a coordinated plan to suppress the story, is something far more dangerous: consensus. Conspiracies have conspirators. They can be caught, exposed, and ridiculed...and they grow old and die. With them dies the conspiracy. A consensus is far more durable. It can last generations.
There are still people who believe the moon landings were faked 50 years on. William Kaysing, the dude usually credited with starting that hoax, is long dead—but there are fresh adherents to his story every day.* You can still buy freshly-printed copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, even tho the people who first pitched the thing have been dead over a century. It doesn't take a cabal of active conspirators to keep an idea alive, it just takes people willing to fall for a story.
And the people who run the NYT (and Facebook and Twitter and most of the news media) had developed a consensus: any story brought forth by Rudy Giulliani that cast the candidate they were pulling for in an unfavorable light was probably fake. And they had ample reason to be suspicious; add a few anonymous quotes from someone in an intelligence agency (or someone adjacent to an intelligence agency, or someone who used to work for one and is now a consultant who will tell them what they want to know and who swears it's true because he knows a guy) and a lazy reporter has a story. And everybody who doesn't have a better source (which is everybody, because nobody really has a source) just follows along, assuming that the NYT just beat them to it.
As for Hunter Biden's laptop being some sort of factual kryptonite that would have reversed the 2020 election...dream on. It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already have ample evidence for. It isn't going to change anyone's mind about who they voted for. After all, Trump had two sons every bit as sleazy as Hunter Biden, involved in just as many sleazy schemes. It does not magically make Donald F#cking Trump a man of upstanding character or honesty or magically make his record better.
"For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power"
— President Biden
(Reuters) "The Kremlin said on Monday that Biden's remark that Vladimir Putin 'cannot remain in power' was a cause for alarm, a guarded response to the first public call from the United States for an end to Putin's 22-year rule."
Note that this is the FIRST time the Kremlin has admitted to being alarmed in ANY fashion since starting this war. Or before, actually.
Trump sure as hell didn't alarm Putin.
But Biden damn well did.
And isn't this what Republicans — and Americans in general according to alleged recent polls — want?
Don't we want Russian leaders alarmed at our resolve? Is that exactly what Biden's critics have been demanding?
Yeah.
Can't wait to see how Tucker Carlson and GOP spin this into Putin being the victim here and how Biden is "weak."
âI was expressing the moral outrage I felt toward this man,â Mr. Biden told reporters,
rejecting criticism that he misspoke. He said no one should have thought
his comments were meant to be calling for Mr. Putinâs ouster.
âItâs ridiculous,â he said, clearly irritated at the questions during an
event in which he unveiled his budget. âNobody believes I was talking
about taking down Putin. Nobody believes that.â
Plausible is a higher standard than possible. From my experiences, advocates for a âconspiracy theoryâ often are arguing that it is possible. And they then often insist that those in opposition prove that it is not possible. The burden of proof should not shift at that point. This is not the same as a discussion over which of 2 plausible explanations one believes should hold sway.
Non-believer: PROVE the Existence of God!
Inquisition: No, YOU PROVE that God doesn't Exist!!
First one to PROVE THE UNPROVABLE wins!!
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 28, 2022 - 11:39am
kurtster wrote:
. . .
There usually is at least two perspectives on nearly everything and until proven otherwise, they are both legitimate in their own rights. We evolve and expand or understanding of things with the very question, what if ? Without asking that question, we stagnate and stop evolving and only by pure chance or accident do we make new discoveries. To stop all conversations that start with what if is a disservice to the public interest. The plausible is worthy of discussion and conjecture. The most recent example of this would be the NWO.
. . .
Plausible is a higher standard than possible. From my experiences, advocates for a âconspiracy theoryâ often are arguing that it is possible. And they then often insist that those in opposition prove that it is not possible. The burden of proof should not shift at that point. This is not the same as a discussion over which of 2 plausible explanations one believes should hold sway.
Well if he was posting his material to bring other people's thinking into view, then y'all gave him a bum rap.
I used to watch the 700 Club just to be aware and up to date on what those people were thinking. Not because I agree with them, and I basically did not, but because I wanted to hear them first hand and figure out for myself what they were about and not have some pundit tell me what to think about their POV. I try to do that with other groups, too. You / we need to know what other's are thinking even if we disagree just to step away from our own little echo chambers and news feeds for a different reference point that does have an impact on events regardless of how we feel about the subject matter. Intellectual isolation is never a good thing.
Y'all shot the messenger and missed the message, as usually happens around here.
People act like there has to be two or more sides to an issue and that both/all are to be accepted as true. But, there are things that just are. The earth is round. It revolves around the sun. Kajillions of scientific measurements and observations have proved it. Tolerating a flat earther in the name of hearing all sides is ludicrous - but the earther will cry “what about free speech? What about an open mind?” The answer is: there was an open mind to your contention, but your contention has been objectively, demonstrably been proved wrong. It was a theory, a conjecture, and idea that is not in the real world. You can keep saying “what if” but that doesn’t make it real or logical. It’s just wasting everyone’s time and is a distraction from dealing with the reality we have. Running something like that off isn’t a monolithic forum/board/conversation. It’s refusing to tolerate wrongness any longer. We have better things to do.
There are two sides to the story regarding the earth being round or flat. Only in the past 500 or so years in the long / short history of humankind was the earth determined to be round. Before then it was officially flat and anyone who thought otherwise publicly was considered a blasphemer with the appropriate penalties of imprisonment, torture and even death. And this is with a physical thing.
There usually is at least two perspectives on nearly everything and until proven otherwise, they are both legitimate in their own rights. We evolve and expand or understanding of things with the very question, what if ? Without asking that question, we stagnate and stop evolving and only by pure chance or accident do we make new discoveries. To stop all conversations that start with what if is a disservice to the public interest. The plausible is worthy of discussion and conjecture. The most recent example of this would be the NWO.
The NWO, long denied as nothing more than a paranoid delusion of extreme conspiracy theorists is now out in the open, acknowledged and being put into action. The turnaround time between a CT and reality has gone from 10 years to a matter of months.
Hunter Biden's laptop has gone from a Russian disinformation CT to reality since the election when one of the official arbiters of truth, the NYT, has finallycome out and issued a mea culpa. I was dissed here for thinking and saying it was real. Too bad it was willfully suppressed by the fact checkers in order to affect the results of an election, but it did happen that way. Lazy8 posted the mea culpa and everyone just ignored it as if it doesn't matter. Same as right now ...
Lastly, the Biden enterprise has survived so far by maintaining the policy and cover of plausibledeniability. Which in the case of Hunter's laptop, it was Russian disinformation. That plausibility was the result of conditioning by the media and fact checkers, et al.
People act like there has to be two or more sides to an issue and that both/all are to be accepted as true. But, there are things that just are. The earth is round. It revolves around the sun. Kajillions of scientific measurements and observations have proved it. Tolerating a flat earther in the name of hearing all sides is ludicrous - but the earther will cry âwhat about free speech? What about an open mind?â
The answer is: there was an open mind to your contention, but your contention has been objectively, demonstrably been proved wrong. It was a theory, a conjecture, and idea that is not in the real world. You can keep saying âwhat ifâ but that doesnât make it real or logical. Itâs just wasting everyoneâs time and is a distraction from dealing with the reality we have.
Running something like that off isnât a monolithic forum/board/conversation. Itâs refusing to tolerate wrongness any longer. We have better things to do.
Well if he was posting his material to bring other people's thinking into view, then y'all gave him a bum rap.
I used to watch the 700 Club just to be aware and up to date on what those people were thinking. Not because I agree with them, and I basically did not, but because I wanted to hear them first hand and figure out for myself what they were about and not have some pundit tell me what to think about their POV. I try to do that with other groups, too. You / we need to know what other's are thinking even if we disagree just to step away from our own little echo chambers and news feeds for a different reference point that does have an impact on events regardless of how we feel about the subject matter. Intellectual isolation is never a good thing.
Y'all shot the messenger and missed the message, as usually happens around here.
Yep, you saw a sheep. I saw a wolf.
and btw. I didn't ask him to shut up or leave. I just called him as I saw him.
Yep, if anyone said anything that got up his nose, it was me and I stand by my comments too. When someone keeps pushing material sourced from Russian troll factories I am forced to draw the conclusion that they are active instruments of that very same disinformation campaign, no matter how much they try to dress themselves up as free and independent thinkers with a liberal perspective. They're not.
Wolves in sheep's clothing I think is the phrase that fits.
Well if he was posting his material to bring other people's thinking into view, then y'all gave him a bum rap.
I used to watch the 700 Club just to be aware and up to date on what those people were thinking. Not because I agree with them, and I basically did not, but because I wanted to hear them first hand and figure out for myself what they were about and not have some pundit tell me what to think about their POV. I try to do that with other groups, too. You / we need to know what other's are thinking even if we disagree just to step away from our own little echo chambers and news feeds for a different reference point that does have an impact on events regardless of how we feel about the subject matter. Intellectual isolation is never a good thing.
Y'all shot the messenger and missed the message, as usually happens around here.
Yeah ? I guess it depends on where you sit. The echo in here gets overwhelming at times. But no worries, Y'all have successfully driven out yet another who has differing opinions and views of things. .
I stand by my comments to Ivanhoe today and reject your charge that my intent was to drive him off.
Yep, if anyone said anything that got up his nose, it was me and I stand by my comments too. When someone keeps pushing material sourced from Russian troll factories I am forced to draw the conclusion that they are active instruments of that very same disinformation campaign, no matter how much they try to dress themselves up as free and independent thinkers with a liberal perspective. They're not.
Wolves in sheep's clothing I think is the phrase that fits.
It is ok. You guys all are ok.
Manufactured consent dominates this place, and I have no intent to engage in more war. I am a pacifist at heart, seemingly unwanted here.
