"Why Does The Mainstream Media Ignore The Bilderberg Group?" (Article)

[JayUtah]

I'm at least as skeptical as you.

Nope. I gave you an analytical rebuttal and you completely ignored it. It explains why you're not skeptical.

I just don't need to insult people on the internet to feel like my life has meaning.

Wrong again.

The six million human lives lost during the Great War, my grandmother included, spit in your face.

 

[Tricky]

Lots of off-topic and bickering moved to AAH. Keep it civil and on-topic or there will be a lot of yellow cards in the AAH version of this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Dazed]

I've already admitted I have no evidence of any conspiracy, and we already determined that means the discussion is over. I know you wanted to keep setting up and knocking down strawmen all day, so sorry.

JayUtah, you do not speak for the entire forum, there is no "We." You are taking it upon yourself to try to paint me with the kook brush and rally a lynch mob, but I'm pretty sure that most sane people that read this will see that I haven't made the claims you say I have and these "arguments" of mine that you've "debunked" weren't arguments at all. Particularly this post:

Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
I think the possibility of conspiracies resulting from the meetings is high.
Based on what evidence?

What "conspiracies" in particular? Why those conspiracies and not some other ones?

Begging the question -- argument rejected.

Quote:
I think they understand that too and that's part of why the secrecy and security are so over the top.
Speculation. Are you up to go good every time you want some privacy?

Confirmation bias -- argument rejected.

Quote:
I think I'll just be frustrated when people do watch it and then justify the lies and deception as acceptable practices and not indicative of anything nefarious.
Yes, go be frustrated. And paranoid. A whole lot of handwaving and speculation, and accusations of "lies and deception," aren't proof of "conspiracies."

Appeal to emotion -- argument rejected.

If you want to support your claim that they're conspiring, then show us one documented conspiracy that they came up with in any Bilderberger gathering, and show us that it actually happened. Can't do it, can you?

None of those things were arguments. That was me speaking my mind, and sharing opinions. If you don't want to hear my opinions, that's fine, but to dress them up as an argument so you can knock them down and pat yourself on the back is pretty unproductive.

 

[Dazed]

If you were to watch the video and explain why the obvious deception is not something to be concerned about, or is somehow acceptable, then we would have something to discuss. Until then you're simply attacking me for claims I have not made and don't even believe.

All I've claimed is that the BG meetings are ripe for conspiracy to occur. You either agree with me and there's no argument, or you don't, and claim that conspiracy at the BG meeting is not within the realm of possibility, which I disagree with but am happy to respect your opinion.

 

[uke2se]

If you were to watch the video and explain why the obvious deception is not something to be concerned about, or is somehow acceptable, then we would have something to discuss. Until then you're simply attacking me for claims I have not made and don't even believe.

All I've claimed is that the BG meetings are ripe for conspiracy to occur. You either agree with me and there's no argument, or you don't, and claim that conspiracy at the BG meeting is not within the realm of possibility, which I disagree with but am happy to respect your opinion.

I'll ask you again to please summarize the video and whatever argument you think the video makes. Also be sure to include evidence of said argument. If you do that, we can have a discussion.

 

[jaydeehess]

it appears my post was misunderstood

if the BG contains a high probabity of collusion/conspiracy and we assume said collusion is not to fix food prices low or supply AIDS meds cheaply then it is a claim of probable nefarious(ie.evil) intent.
You admit there is no evidence that such malfesance has occurred over several decades yet turn around and claim its likely to have.
Thats continuing the arguement is it not?

You also claimed that it was probable that Gates wished to alleviate a worldwide hatred of his wealth, yet all evidence suggests that there is little or no such hatred and that Gates' intent is purely altruistic. So what evidence is there to suggest a probable contrary motive?

It would seem in both cases these probabilities are backed solely by suspicion of anyone with wealth only because of that wealth? That would be akin to racial profiling imho

 

[theprestige]

If you were to watch the video and explain why the obvious deception is not something to be concerned about, or is somehow acceptable,

Clarification: rumors of "obvious deception" that appears only in a YouTube video, and cannot be presented here for discussion, is not something to be concerned about.

YouTube videos, in general, are not something to be concerned about--especially when their advocates put more effort into pimping those videos than they do actually discussing the claims.

then we would have something to discuss.

Correction: If you were to bring actual evidence to support your actual claim of "obvious deception" to this thread, then we would have something to discuss.

Until then you're simply attacking me for claims I have not made and don't even believe.

Well, you have actually claimed "obvious deception", and you do really seem to even believe it.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, other than "I saw it in a YouTube video"? Do you even have the specific details from the video's claim, for discussion?

All I've claimed is that the BG meetings are ripe for conspiracy to occur. You either agree with me and there's no argument, or you don't, and claim that conspiracy at the BG meeting is not within the realm of possibility, which I disagree with but am happy to respect your opinion.

The problem is that you use loaded terms like "ripe for conspiracy", and then want them to stand in for concrete claims supported by concrete evidence.

I don't think anybody would disagree with the basic proposition that the Bilderbergers might be conspiring about something. But that doesn't mean that they are conspiring about anything.

I think people are quick to lose interest when they realize that not only do you not have any evidence for any specific conspiracy, but you're not even proposing any specific conspiracy that anyone could even gather evidence for.

The Bilderbergers might be conspiring about something. So what? Do you know what they might be conspiring about? No. Do you have any evidence that they're conspiring about it? No. So why is it interesting?

Other than that they're rich and they don't invite you their parties, what's the evidence that they're doing anything interesting at all?

 

[jaydeehess]

I should point out that I see
"high possibility"="probable"="likely"

 

[Dazed]

it appears my post was misunderstood

if the BG contains a high probabity of collusion/conspiracy and we assume said collusion is not to fix food prices low or supply AIDS meds cheaply then it is a claim of probable nefarious(ie.evil) intent.
You admit there is no evidence that such malfesance has occurred over several decades yet turn around and claim its likely to have.
Thats continuing the arguement is it not?

You also claimed that it was probable that Gates wished to alleviate a worldwide hatred of his wealth, yet all evidence suggests that there is little or no such hatred and that Gates' intent is purely altruistic. So what evidence is there to suggest a probable contrary motive?

It would seem in both cases these probabilities are backed solely by suspicion of anyone with wealth only because of that wealth? That would be akin to racial profiling imho

Correct. Much like the occupy movement, I do not believe the wealthy have my best interests at heart. For which reason, I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that their secret meetings are entirely benign simply because they've said so.

Any claim I've presented that has been misunderstood/misrepresented can be summarized as this: BG meetings are not boring and are worthy of further scrutiny.

Now I'm apparently on the ropes defending my crazy position, good show skeptics.

 

[Dazed]

Clarification: rumors of "obvious deception" that appears only in a YouTube video, and cannot be presented here for discussion, is not something to be concerned about.

YouTube videos, in general, are not something to be concerned about--especially when their advocates put more effort into pimping those videos than they do actually discussing the claims.


Correction: If you were to bring actual evidence to support your actual claim of "obvious deception" to this thread, then we would have something to discuss.


Well, you have actually claimed "obvious deception", and you do really seem to even believe it.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, other than "I saw it in a YouTube video"? Do you even have the specific details from the video's claim, for discussion?


The problem is that you use loaded terms like "ripe for conspiracy", and then want them to stand in for concrete claims supported by concrete evidence.

I don't think anybody would disagree with the basic proposition that the Bilderbergers might be conspiring about something. But that doesn't mean that they are conspiring about anything.

I think people are quick to lose interest when they realize that not only do you not have any evidence for any specific conspiracy, but you're not even proposing any specific conspiracy that anyone could even gather evidence for.

The Bilderbergers might be conspiring about something. So what? Do you know what they might be conspiring about? No. Do you have any evidence that they're conspiring about it? No. So why is it interesting?

Other than that they're rich and they don't invite you their parties, what's the evidence that they're doing anything interesting at all?

No. I'm not going to summarize a video for you when the video is right there for you to watch. That does not make my "argument" invalid if you refuse to educate yourself about the subject matter. It is not my video, nor my claim. If you choose not to watch it, that's your prerogative. I have however seen an awful lot of assumption about this video's contents however, and it's rather amusing how off base these comments are.

 

[uke2se]

No. I'm not going to summarize a video for you when the video is right there for you to watch. That does not make my "argument" invalid if you refuse to educate yourself about the subject matter. It is not my video, nor my claim. If you choose not to watch it, that's your prerogative. I have however seen an awful lot of assumption about this video's contents however, and it's rather amusing how off base these comments are.

What arguments do you feel the video makes? What evidence does it present?

 

[jaydeehess]

What arguments do you feel the video makes? What evidence does it present?

I'd be interested in that given that I cannot view a video here nor do I appreciate being told to watch or read something then comment on the author's position before the person demanding my attention to the article even gives a summary

 

[Dazed]

The video itself requires further analyses to determine if it is indeed evidence of anything, or even if the context in which magz placed it is correct.

At first blush it appears to be evidence of an unnecessarily grandiose conspiracy to deceive the media regarding BG attendence of particular important parties... Which is relevant to this thread.

 

[jaydeehess]

can you give one specific mentioned that backs this assertion

 

[JayUtah]

I've already admitted I have no evidence of any conspiracy...

Then upon what do you base your belief in a "high possibility" of conspiracies arising from the Bilderbergers' discussion? Why is that possibility necessarily higher than any other possibility? Why will you only discuss vague, pointless generalities?

JayUtah, you do not speak for the entire forum...

I never claimed to. I speak only for me. Straw man -- argument rejected.

...there is no "We."

Whereupon you yourself write:

we already determined that means the discussion is over.

You don't speak for the forum either. I've ever only asked you to address what I have said. But you seem intent on poisoning the well, to wit:

You are taking it upon yourself to try to paint me with the kook brush and rally a lynch mob...

Where have I done that? I've provided you a reductio ad absurdum rebuttal, which you immediately sidetracked into a pointless, irrelevant emotional rant. I provided a summary of why an argument from silence is necessarily a fallacy, and you completely ignored it. I've only been in this thread less than a day, and you're already trying to demonize me as some sort of rabble-rousing ringleader.

but I'm pretty sure that most sane people...

"If you don't agree with me, you aren't sane." Appeal to the gallery -- argument rejected. Besides, there's no need for you to try to speak on behalf of other posters and the lurkers. They can reach their own conclusions.

None of those things were arguments. That was me speaking my mind, and sharing opinions.

But if we don't agree with your "opinions" then you think there's something wrong with us. You think your opinions are right, and you're trying to give us reasons why we should also think so. Ergo they are arguments, and I've rebutted them. You can either address the rebuttal, or you can continue applying meaningless distraction.

If you don't want to hear my opinions, that's fine...

If you don't want to hear my rebuttals, that's fine -- there's an "ignore" feature. But kindly quit trying to poison the well. Shaming your critics away from asking you questions will not paint you as well-reasoned.

...but to dress them up as an argument so you can knock them down and pat yourself on the back is pretty unproductive.

Fine, then stop patting yourself on the back for allegedly being the only one who watched the posted YouTube video.

Now I'll ask politely again. Since you have no evidence of any conspiracy on the part of the Bilderbergers, what makes your belief in the "high possibility" of such conspiracies so especially rational? Why are we giving in to "lies and deception" if we simply don't see it as intriguing a possibility as you do?

 

[uke2se]

The video itself requires further analyses to determine if it is indeed evidence of anything, or even if the context in which magz placed it is correct.

At first blush it appears to be evidence of an unnecessarily grandiose conspiracy to deceive the media regarding BG attendence of particular important parties... Which is relevant to this thread.

Are you planning on performing this analysis? I can with utmost confidence tell you right now that the video itself isn't evidence of anything. What matters is what assertions are made in the video and what evidence is provided to back these up.

I am willing to discuss this with you if you take the time to present an argument - any argument. It doesn't even have to be yours. It can be from the video. I don't appreciate just being told to watch a video. If you want a discussion, you need to do your part first.

 

[JayUtah]

The video itself requires further analyses to determine if it is indeed evidence of anything, or even if the context in which magz placed it is correct.

You as the proponent of this evidence have that burden of analysis and proof. Let us know what you determine.

 

[JayUtah]

I'd be interested in that given that I cannot view a video here nor do I appreciate being told to watch or read something then comment on the author's position before the person demanding my attention to the article even gives a summary

If I wanted to debate YouTube videos, I'd do so on YouTube. I come to JREF to debate topics raised, discussed, and tested here on JREF. Indeed, not everyone is allowed to see YouTube at the same place they see JREF (bandwidth, etc.).

But relying upon someone else's magnum opus as the entirety of one's argument invites equivocation. As long as the argument is going well, the proponent can say, "This is important evidence and it deserves your attention and response." This is what Dazed is doing by telling us that if we "can't be bothered" to go see that evidence, then the discussion is at an impasse.

But when the discussion goes badly, the proponent can disavow responsibility to defend or explain someone else's work. "You'll have to ask whoever made the video." That's unsatisfying for the critics who have invested a substantial effort in addressing the evidence.

Honest argumentation requires the proponent to "own" the evidence he presents, to some point, even if it was largely formulated by someone else. If one is unable or unwilling to answer questions about that evidence, then the honest thing to do is to withdraw it or concede that it has been provisionally refuted.

 

[Dazed]

You as the proponent of this evidence have that burden of analysis and proof. Let us know what you determine.

I'm not the proponent of anything. Someone posted a video and I watched it and agreed that this was significant to this discussion. (Or at least what would be a discussion if you weren't just desperately trying to pigeonhole me into some "position" that you could then "debunk") If you can't be bothered to watch it, there's nothing to discuss.

 

[uke2se]

I'm not the proponent of anything. Someone posted a video and I watched it and agreed that this was significant to this discussion. (Or at least what would be a discussion if you weren't just desperately trying to pigeonhole me into some "position" that you could then "debunk") If you can't be bothered to watch it, there's nothing to discuss.

Shall we take this as a definite that you're unwilling to bring up the points in the video for discussion? I mean, you agreed that the video was significant to this discussion, but you seem unwilling to explain why by bringing up whatever you thought was significant in the video.