• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

Dave Rogers said:
That quote reveals a misunderstanding of the findings of the experiment so fundamental that it seems pointless even to begin to explain it to you.

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as this is a thinly-veiled accusation of me being a numbskull, and I'm sure that personal insults are forbidden on here, why would I even want you to? Either play nice in the sand-pit, or go forth with jerky movements!
 
IMO Al Qaeda's involvement was proven to the satisfaction of any rational person, Jane. If ideology can make one believe it was when it really wasn't as you appear to suggest, then IMO ideology can make one believe it wasn't when it really was. That's where you come in.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
IMO Al Qaeda's involvement was proven to the satisfaction of any rational person, Jane. If ideology can make one believe it was when it really wasn't as you appear to suggest, then IMO ideology can make one believe it wasn't when it really was. That's where you come in.
Click to expand...

I haven't said that al Qaeda wasn't involved, stead, though exactly how and to what extent is yet to be established.
 
JihadJane said:
By their own account the 911 Commission had to fight very hard to extract any information whatsoever from the obstructive Bush regime. You are assuming that Dems not having evidence of Bush complicity means that Bush wasn't complicit. It could equally indicate that the evidence has been successfully put beyond the Dem's reach.

The Rep/Dem game is a side-show to US deep politics.
Click to expand...

The Dems had access to same evidence as the Reps, so this speculation has no merit.

This has never been proven and certainly wasn't proven by the manacled 911 Commission.
Click to expand...

Sure it has, but your blind bias has kept you from accepting it.
 
TexasJack said:
The Dems had access to same evidence as the Reps, so this speculation has no merit.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you don't truly understand the depth of the ee-vill we're dealing with here.

The Republicans and Democrats are either (a) exactly the same people, just acting like they disagree, to divert attention from what's really, really, really, really, really, really, really secretly going on; or (b) just puppets without power, set up to make people think they actually have a political choice and to divert attention from what's really, really, really, really, really, really, really secretly going on.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Ah, but you don't truly understand the depth of the ee-vill we're dealing with here.

The Republicans and Democrats are either (a) exactly the same people, just acting like they disagree, to divert attention from what's really, really, really, really, really, really, really secretly going on; or (b) just puppets without power, set up to make people think they actually have a political choice and to divert attention from what's really, really, really, really, really, really, really secretly going on.
Click to expand...

Are you prepared to stake your life on it being an absolute impossibility that some group could be benefitting no matter which party is in, and has influence on both sides?
 
Ragnarok said:
Are you prepared to stake your life on it being an absolute impossibility that some group could be benefitting no matter which party is in, and has influence on both sides?
Click to expand...

There's also a possibility that Elvis lives and Bigfoot exists, what's your point?
 
Ragnarok said:
Are you prepared to stake your life on it being an absolute impossibility that some group could be benefitting no matter which party is in, and has influence on both sides?
Click to expand...

Are you prepared to stake your life on the absolute impossibility that you will die tomorrow if you don't make a chain letter out of this message and forward it to 100 people in the next 10 minutes?
 
Ragnarok said:
Even in this current credit crunch, someone is still making money. How certain are you that none of this could be socially engineered?
Click to expand...

Zero-sum fallacy. Just because somebody lost wealth does not mean the same amount of wealth was gained elsewhere. Economics 101.

Incidentally, you haven't answered post #112.
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Zero-sum fallacy. Just because somebody lost wealth does not mean the same amount of wealth was gained elsewhere. Economics 101.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you economics experts seem to have it all under control at the moment.
1337m4n said:
Incidentally, you haven't answered post #112.
Click to expand...

Are you saying your suggestion was equally as likely as my own?

Are you gonna answer this - "How certain are you that none of this could be socially engineered? "
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
Yeah, you economics experts seem to have it all under control at the moment.


Are you saying your suggestion was equally as likely as my own?

Are you gonna answer this - "How certain are you that none of this could be socially engineered? "
Click to expand...

I have a better question: is there any sane reason (i.e., actual evidence) that it is "socially engineeered", or is this just another example of the conspira-loon article of faith that anything that happens must be the intended result of deliberate human agency unless proven otherwise?

At present I have no evidence that I have suffered a knife wound- I am not bleeding nor are there any unexplained holes in my body. Do I need to prove that I couldn't have been stabbed in order to hold the opinion that I have not been?
 
ktesibios said:
I have a better question: is there any sane reason (i.e., actual evidence) that it is "socially engineeered", or is this just another example of the conspira-loon article of faith that anything that happens must be the intended result of deliberate human agency unless proven otherwise?

At present I have no evidence that I have suffered a knife wound- I am not bleeding nor are there any unexplained holes in my body. Do I need to prove that I couldn't have been stabbed in order to hold the opinion that I have not been?
Click to expand...

You said "anything that happens" the conspira-loon article of faith is that it is socially engineered. Not really but...

In your stabbing story nothing really happened to you did it? Is the economy not bleeding? Is there a specific cause? Is there really enough information or accountability on what caused the bleeding? That's what starts conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
How certain are you that none of this could be socially engineered?
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah... and how certain are you that you actually exist? This isn't an exercise in philosophy, Ragnarok.

I'm as certain as the evidence allows me to be. You, on the other hand, seem to be as uncertain as your imagination allows you to be...
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Yeah, yeah... and how certain are you that you actually exist? This isn't an exercise in philosophy, Ragnarok.

I'm as certain as the evidence allows me to be. You, on the other hand, seem to be as uncertain as your imagination allows you to be...
Click to expand...

As certain as the evidence allows you to be? Is there always evidence of a known crime?

What percentage of crimes end in a conviction?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/cpp.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom