• 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.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cuddles

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
18,840
The original thread was getting rather long and has therefore been closed. Please feel free to continue the discussion here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
How long till the claims that the old thread was closed to hide the "complete beatdown" by Bill that was going on?
 
I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
 
bill smith said:
I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
Click to expand...

Any sane person will deny this as Truth for USA/UK/Canada/ Europe Bill. Paranoia explains it better.

In Iraq, maybe. In Korea, maybe. In Zimbabawa, maybe.

What planet are you on Bill?
 
bill smith said:
I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
Click to expand...

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments. It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by elements within the US Government, and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt. The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded those who question the truther account of events with the same level of skepticism that they question the vastly more widely understood account of events, and find that the former is contradicted by, where the latter is supported by, any and all the available evidence.

Dave
 
Whiplash said:
How long till the claims that the old thread was closed to hide the "complete beatdown" by Bill that was going on?
Click to expand...

Maybe certain sensitive subjects should be avoided. There are more roads to Rome anyway.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments. It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by elements within the US Government, and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt. The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded those who question the truther account of events with the same level of skepticism that they question the vastly more widely understood account of events, and find that the former is contradicted by, where the latter is supported by, any and all the available evidence.

Dave
Click to expand...
Interesting piece of pop-psychology there Dave. However it leaves the impregnable tightly-written axiom from Mike Rivero unscathed.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Interesting piece of pop-psychology there Dave. However it leaves the impregnable tightly-written axiom from Mike Rivero unscathed.
Click to expand...

And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position, whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position, whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.

Dave
Click to expand...

You should consider doing this for a living Dave.
 
This exerpt from another well known person slots in with Mike Rivero's axiom to some extent.

''It would never come into their [the people's] heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.''
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
This exerpt from another well known person slots in with Mike Rivero's axiom to some extent.

''It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.''
Click to expand...

Do you proof read what you post Bill? Thought not.

You have a knack of being able to post the most refuting and self destructing evidence Bill -well done. The TM will be slithering away from you as we speak. Classic stuff.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position,
Click to expand...

I guess a couple hundred years of psychology is not good enough "evidence" for you is it Dave?

That piece of "pop" psychology is quite clearly fact. It is psychology 101. It doesn't matter how you try and portray it. This is how the human mind works, and if you were to take some psychology courses you would learn that this quote from Mike Rivero is logical and truthful and accurate.

It also explains perfectly the attitudes and reactions of most on these very forums, but that is what you are trying to hide.

Dave Rogers said:
whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.

Dave
Click to expand...

Do you think using the term "fallacious" makes your argument seem any more valid? It does not, all it does is show you have no understanding of psychology.

How people react and believe "is an exercise in logic rather than psychology"? Really Dave? Maybe you should do a little research and find out what psychology is all about!
 
SteveAustin said:
That piece of "pop" psychology is quite clearly fact. It is psychology 101. It doesn't matter how you try and portray it. This is how the human mind works, and if you were to take some psychology courses you would learn that this quote from Mike Rivero is logical and truthful and accurate.
Click to expand...

Even if it were, it's irrelevant to the specific question of whether the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and hence posting it on this forum is an attempt at misdirection.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Even if it were
Click to expand...

Is that your way of saying "I was wrong about Bill's comments and the quotes he used"

Dave Rogers said:
it's irrelevant to the specific question of whether the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and hence posting it on this forum is an attempt at misdirection.

Dave
Click to expand...

That's disingeneous of you Dave, of course it is irrelevant TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION of whether the US government was responsible, but this is the "general discussion thread" and the psychology behind 9/11 and the psychology of the JREF debunkers is not irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom