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

[dafydd]

Hilarious. You said if I agreed with your statement the discussion was over, and I did. Yet here you are erecting a strawman to carry on your attack, placing claims I never made upon me. I shouldn't even humour you, but for the record:



I have made no pronouncements. I stated several opinions. I made no claim that BG members are evil. This is a strawman. I did not opine the insincerity of Bill Gates; I was asked to explain why his charitable foundation exists if human nature is self-serving, and I presented a possible self-serving explanation.

You said that all the world hated Bill Gates. Are you now retracting that statement?

 

[dafydd]

No. I'm not going to summarize a video for you when the video is right there for you to watch.

This is a discussion forum, not a cinema. Youtube is just a repository of crackpot CT videos.

 

[jaydeehess]

what is the running time of this video? perhaps I can watch it during my lunch hour

though if Dazed cannot be bothered to say what specifics he believes are relevent to the OP (neither could MAGZ)I really don't know why I am required to watch the entire thing to deduce why Dazed thinks it is

 

[Dazed]

You said that all the world hated Bill Gates. Are you now retracting that statement?

Yes, it was an exaggeration.
I think the point stands though, and I know this isn't exactly "Evidence" of the position, but I think it demonstrates that, culturally, there has been somewhat of a universal disdain for Gates since he became so wealthy.

https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=o...r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8fa4e4866e8975b0&pf=p&pdl=300

I still stand by the point I made. Image is important enough and he's wealthy enough that he can spare some of his fortune to appear charitable and philanthropic to mitigate some of this disdain for him.

Not saying this is the case necessarily, but I was asked to explain how rich people could be self serving and yet the Bill and Melinda gates foundation still exist. I could think of other reasons as well, this was just one suggestion.

 

[jaydeehess]

You said that all the world hated Bill Gates. Are you now retracting that statement?

he won't readdress that

its barely relevent other than as a demonstration of a prejudice towards anyone wealthy

 

[Dazed]

This is a discussion forum, not a cinema. Youtube is just a repository of crackpot CT videos.

Present your evidence of this claim?

 

[Dazed]

he won't readdress that

its barely relevent other than as a demonstration of a prejudice towards anyone wealthy

Evidence for your claim?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not the proponent of anything.

You proposed that there was a "high possibility" of conspiracy and collusion being the purpose of the Bilderbergers. Are you now abandoning that claim? If so, then confirm. If not, then please answer my previous question regarding that proposition.

Someone posted a video and I watched it and agreed that this was significant to this discussion.

Yet you are unwilling to explain what about it makes it so worth anyone's attention, or why and how it proves anything related to the topic or to your belief. You simply accuse everyone of ignoring evidence, call them trolls, and feign indignance at how shabbily you're being treated. Please drop the martyr complex; it grows tedious.

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"

Keep poisoning that well! Or alternatively, put down the cross and answer the few simple questions I've asked you.

If you can't be bothered to watch it, there's nothing to discuss.

I've made no representation regarding whether I've watched the video or not. I'm simply asking you to explain why you think it's rational to believe there's a "high possibility" that the Bilderbergers are wanton conspirators. If you think the video is relevant to that belief, explain why. If you believe the video requires additional analysis, then provide it.

 

[JayUtah]

I think the point stands though, and I know this isn't exactly "Evidence" of the position, but I think it demonstrates that, culturally, there has been somewhat of a universal disdain for Gates since he became so wealthy.

Replace "hate" with "like" in your query and Google returns ten times more hits than for your question: 84 million for "like" versus 7.4 million for "hate." I dispute that your straw-man Google search is usable evidence for your claim for "universal disdain" for Bill Gates. Do you have any other evidence that he is universally disliked?

I happen to dislike him -- not because he is wealthy, but because I believe he and his company have made poor business and technical decisions and have hampered the development of personal computer technology.

Image is important enough and he's wealthy enough that he can spare some of his fortune to appear charitable and philanthropic to mitigate some of this disdain for him.

As I said, I dispute your premise that he is universally disliked. But even so, your argument is simply an affirmation of the consequent. What is your evidence that mitigating disdain (real or imagined) is the reason Bill Gates contributes money to charity?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If it seems like I made the claim that all Bilderbergs are "evil" I'd like to correct that. I think the possibility of conspiracies resulting from the meetings is high. I think they understand that too and that's part of why the secrecy and security are so over the top.

I suppose that humans, as social creatures, find secrecy among others to be suspicious by default, but a suspicion/fear of the unknown is hardly evidence that the reason for the secrecy is nefarious.

Later in the thread you claimed not to have any evidence that anything nefarious is actually going on, so it seems that you actually have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this discussion, know it, and yet chose to speak anyway.

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.

They're one-way messengers. Imagine if your mailman only delivered letters, but refused to take your responses, insisting that you deliver it yourself. Lazy, lazy...

 

[Dazed]

I suppose that humans, as social creatures, find secrecy among others to be suspicious by default, but a suspicion/fear of the unknown is hardly evidence that the reason for the secrecy is nefarious.

Later in the thread you claimed not to have any evidence that anything nefarious is actually going on, so it seems that you actually have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this discussion, know it, and yet chose to speak anyway.




They're one-way messengers. Imagine if your mailman only delivered letters, but refused to take your responses, insisting that you deliver it yourself. Lazy, lazy...

It's true, I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this thread, and know it. You'll notice that all my posts are just pointing out that I haven't made any real claim, and defending myself against assertions that I have. I chimed in with my 2 cents on the matter and am now being pressured to change my opinion to one that JayUtah and his ilk find more in line with their own opinions. If my distrust of the BG's good intentions is paranoid, then I'm obviously paranoid. I'll repeat the one and only actual claim that I've made for posterity:

The BG group is not boring, and the nature of the meeting creates a situation which is fertile for conspiracies between rich and powerful individuals to arise and even though there is no evidence of such conspiracies, we should be skeptical of this group's alleged benign nature.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The BG group is not boring, and the nature of the meeting creates a situation which is fertile for conspiracies between rich and powerful individuals to arise and even though there is no evidence of such conspiracies, we should be skeptical of this group's alleged benign nature.

But why is this somehow more significant than all those other meetings between rich and powerful individuals of which you never hear the details? And why can't the goings-on at these meetings be as benign as you fear they are malignant?

 

[JayUtah]

It's true, I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this thread, and know it.

Yet when others noted this, you dismiss it as the "party line" promulgated by "40 trolls." If this is how you originally felt, why did that accurate assessment by others provoke such a hostile response?

You'll notice that all my posts are just pointing out that I haven't made any real claim, and defending myself against assertions that I have.

Then will you kindly explain what you meant in these posts?

Their evil plan is to put the chief of the NSA and the CEO of google in the same room and let whatever happens, happen. It's not the talking points on the event itinerary I think would be interesting. It's the networking between the most powerful people and what could result from that. But the vast majority of people here have this beautiful faith in the nobility of the world's bankers and corporate CEOs.

If it seems like I made the claim that all Bilderbergs are "evil" I'd like to correct that. I think the possibility of conspiracies resulting from the meetings is high. I think they understand that too and that's part of why the secrecy and security are so over the top.

I didn't know MAGZ was not part of the discussion, the video he posted caused a strong reaction from the "WTF" part of my brain, and was wondering why no one had said anything about it...

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.

I glean the following propositions or assertions from them and other posts you made:

• The Bilderbergers have an evil plan -- later retracted, but originally made nonetheless.
• The Bilderberger plan among NSA and Google involves surveillance.
• There is a high possibility of conspiracies arising from Bilderberger conferences.
• The secrecy surrounding Bilderberger meetings is to prevent people from discovering the conspiracies.
• The Bilderbergers engage in "lies and deception."
• People who do not agree that the Bilderbergers are "nefarious" are somehow deluded.

Have I grossly misread these posts? These sound like statements of belief that you feel merit some attention. We have asked what evidence supports them, and you have said none does. But now it seems as if you want us to believe you never stated them.

Toward that end I have asked what makes your beliefs especially rational. It's clear that you understand we don't share them. But you seem to think we're irrational for that failure. That's the point I'm struggling to understand now. What makes your belief so credible? Or if not, can you simply withdraw the insinuation that disagreement with you doesn't automatically make someone irrational?

I [...] am now being pressured to change my opinion to one that JayUtah and his ilk find more in line with their own opinions.

Continued personal obsession noted. No, you're just being asked some simple questions about your stated beliefs. No one is pressuring you to do anything besides talk. But you seem to be going to a lot of effort to play the victim instead.

If my distrust of the BG's good intentions is paranoid, then I'm obviously paranoid.

Your insistence that distrust of the Bilderbergers, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that "anything nefarious" is actually going on, is not only rational but enjoys a "high possibility" of being true is what is being questioned. If you are unwilling to be questioned on that point, then kindly concede it.

The BG group is not boring, and the nature of the meeting creates a situation which is fertile for conspiracies between rich and powerful individuals...

But of course you're not actually claiming this. Just insinuating it. So if you aren't actually claiming it, then there's no reason for you to be upset or insulted if other people don't reach your conclusion.

 

[Dazed]

But why is this somehow more significant than all those other meetings between rich and powerful individuals of which you never hear the details? And why can't the goings-on at these meetings be as benign as you fear they are malignant?

It's not, and they can be. My point is we don't know that, and it's wrong to brand people as Conspiracy Theorists for looking at an obviously sketchy situation and wanting to know more. The "nothing to see here" mentality of some posters here is the whole driving force keeping this dumb thread going.

I refuse to be cowed into saying the BG meeting is a boring snooze-fest.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Continued personal obsession noted. No, you're just being asked some simple questions about your stated beliefs. No one is pressuring you to do anything besides talk. But you seem to be going to a lot of effort to play the victim instead.

[snipped quote]

Your insistence that distrust of the Bilderbergers, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that "anything nefarious" is actually going on, is not only rational but enjoys a "high possibility" of being true is what is being questioned.

I think Dazed may be in that "an attack on my beliefs is an attack on me" mode that a lot of deeply religious folks enter when they are similarly questioned about their faith.

@Dazed: If you're uncomfortable with having your faith questioned on a skeptic's forum, simply say "I'm unwilling to talk about it." The important part, though, is that you also refrain from bringing it up.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, it was an exaggeration.
I think the point stands though, and I know this isn't exactly "Evidence" of the position, but I think it demonstrates that, culturally, there has been somewhat of a universal disdain for Gates since he became so wealthy.

https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=o...r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8fa4e4866e8975b0&pf=p&pdl=300

I still stand by the point I made. Image is important enough and he's wealthy enough that he can spare some of his fortune to appear charitable and philanthropic to mitigate some of this disdain for him.

Not saying this is the case necessarily, but I was asked to explain how rich people could be self serving and yet the Bill and Melinda gates foundation still exist. I could think of other reasons as well, this was just one suggestion.

Not where I live in Flanders. I did some research. As for your remark about appearing charitable and philanthropic, that is mealy-mouthed and reeks of envy. Bill Gates has done more for the world than you will ever do.

 

[JayUtah]

My point is we don't know that...

If you don't have any information about what's going on, what's the justification for leaping to the most alarmist conclusion? Selecting the most sensational out of several possible explanations is a bias more attributable to paranoia than to reason. Unless you can explain it differently.

it's wrong to brand people as Conspiracy Theorists...

I haven't branded you anything. And I only use the word "conspiracy" because you use the word "conspiracy." You're telling me there's a high probability that conspiracies will arise out of Bilderberger meetings. Now in my mind that makes you a conspiracy theorist, but it's not as if I need that label in order to challenge your statements of belief.

...for looking at an obviously sketchy situation and wanting to know more.

You're trying to sneak in an argument again. "Obviously sketchy" is your interpretation of what's going on. You're begging the question.

The "nothing to see here" mentality of some posters here is the whole driving force keeping this dumb thread going.

No, it's a rejection of your "There's gotta be something nefarious going on!" mentality. That's an important distinction, because you seem to be forcing a dilemma. Of course I accept the possibility that the Bilderbergers may be planning world domination. I just don't see it as necessarily more probable than any other hypothesis, including those that are strictly benign. Don't confuse a rejection of your insinuations with a counter-assertion to the contrary.

I refuse to be cowed into saying the BG meeting is a boring snooze-fest.

You're not being "cowed," you're simply being asked whether there's any rational basis for your stated beliefs that would persuade someone else.

 

[Dazed]

of course i accept the possibility that the bilderbergers may be planning world domination.

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 0.

 

[JayUtah]

[name-calling]

Hair split. Care to respond to the sentence that followed the one you ripped bleeding from its context?

 

[Dazed]

Hair split. Care to respond to the sentence that followed the one you ripped bleeding from its context?

"No, it's a rejection of your "There's gotta be something nefarious going on!" mentality. That's an important distinction, because you seem to be forcing a dilemma."

I never said there must be something nefarious going on. I said its unreasonable for you to mock and denigrate those who are trying to establish if there is.

I read a lot of threads here, and I enjoy the back and forth between the kooks and the party line. Helps me find a balance of rationality between the two. Seeing this one get banned just made me sigh, cause now I have to do my Bilderberg conspiracy research on my own, instead of having a hardline CT present it in a neat little package for me.