100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Who's Afraid of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Something to ponder.
"Propaganda is to democracy as violence is to dictatorship" - Noam Chomsky |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Tue 12/04/12 05:44 PM
|
|
To be clear, I said the System is corrupt, (not the "government.") For sure the government has been corrupted by the over all system, but the system and the government are not the same thing. The system is the Banking system of Elite that funds the politicians, the schools, the foundations, colleges etc. The "system" is not merely "the government." The system is such a vague, nebulous term that I took it to mean the government. I don't care what fantasy you use to interpret such a colloquial term, it doesn't alter the fallacious nature of your so-called logic. Instead of dodging the point with minutiae, try addressing the problem regarding your fallacious logic. You apparently don't really read my posts. I have said that the Jewish people do not control, manipulate or own the Media. The Rothschild/Morgan family dynasties do. I have also claimed that the Rothschilds and Morgan family dynasties are not Jews. Ok, so you've found another whacko website and changed your tune. I gave up reading most of the bollocks you post some time ago-just more of same ranting really. Are you really trying to tell me that you've NEVER accused Jews of owning the media? Really? I remember it distinctly, as would many others I'm sure. Come on, JB, surely you don't think Mingle readers are that forgetful? Whatever, it still doesn't alter the fallacious nature of your so-called logic. Typical truther evasion tactics. If you are not aware enough to realize that "a government" is not "the system" then you should get more education on that subject. When I use terms like "the system" I certainly don't mean "the government" You automatically assumed it. It has nothing to do with 'education on the subject'. This is just moronic as it is a vague term that specifies nothing. For example, in Monty Python's Holy Grail in the scene where the king attacks Dennis, the anarchist, the 'system' is the government (e.g. a contraction of 'system of government'). Perhaps it is a cultural anomaly that it has different meanings, or perhaps it is because it is not a very specific term. Whatever, it still doesn't alter the fallacious nature of the logic in your original post. If you are unable to digest this, that is your problem, not mine. There is nothing wrong with my logic. Name calling does not change that. It is poorly though out and is based on innaccurate generalisations, therefore, fallacious. As for the Jews owning the media, yes I have said that but only because the Rothschild's and the J.P. Morgans are thought to be "Jews." They may even claim to be Jews. So if a person believes that all you have to do is claim to be a Jew to be a Jew, then Jews own the Media because they are considered to be Jews. But my claim is that The Rothschild's and the J.P. Morgan family dynasty are not Jewish. They are closer to being Nazi's. (Ashkennazi's who claim to be Jewish) Ok, apology accepted. Now, I will repeat to be clear: THE SYSTEM is corrupt and the system has power and influence over politics, science, universities, grants, salaries, etc.Therefore to trust the system or anyone influenced or dependent on it, is illogical. Back to square one including the same fallacious logic. Explain to me why you are calling my logic fallacious. <it's fallacious to say that something must exist because science hasn't proven its nonexistence> My logic is perfectly sound. 1. IF the system is corrupt... (a premise) It follows that..... anything that is dependent, beholding, or benefited by that system is or may also be corrupt.............and therefore, can't be trusted. Very simple logic. Just read my initial post again, as I covered it earlier. You chose to focus on some crap about the interpretation of 'system' and ignored the rest, obviously. Your premise is based upon poor logic. That makes the rest of it invalid. Please try to comprehend these simple concepts, it's not that difficult. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Tue 12/04/12 05:46 PM
|
|
Actually, I've changed my mind. This might be funny. Prove to me that Rothschild and Morgan family dynasties own ALL the media outlets and prove to me that they manipulate the content and inculcate their minions with their ideals in order to further their plans. My claim is that most of the Major Media is own and controlled by the Rothschild and J.P.Morgan dynasties and I have posted the information previously about who owns what. If you don't care about that, and don't want to believe that, that is up to you. If you want to disprove that, then that is also up to you. I know you have demonstrated trouble with the concept before, but the burden of proof is on you owing to the fact that it is you who make this claim, not I. Um... no its not. I don't have to prove it unless I have a vested interest in convincing someone else. That is my claim. If anyone wants to disprove it, I welcome the effort. You see, you do have trouble with the concept, but whatever. It doesn't mean anything if you can't prove it. It's just x amount of garbage. I know this discussion is going to plunge into specious sophistry. This tactic of annoying people with feigned ignorance, obduracy and obfuscation is rather tiresome. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 12/04/12 06:23 PM
|
|
Actually, I've changed my mind. This might be funny. Prove to me that Rothschild and Morgan family dynasties own ALL the media outlets and prove to me that they manipulate the content and inculcate their minions with their ideals in order to further their plans. My claim is that most of the Major Media is own and controlled by the Rothschild and J.P.Morgan dynasties and I have posted the information previously about who owns what. If you don't care about that, and don't want to believe that, that is up to you. If you want to disprove that, then that is also up to you. I know you have demonstrated trouble with the concept before, but the burden of proof is on you owing to the fact that it is you who make this claim, not I. Um... no its not. I don't have to prove it unless I have a vested interest in convincing someone else. That is my claim. If anyone wants to disprove it, I welcome the effort. You see, you do have trouble with the concept, but whatever. It doesn't mean anything if you can't prove it. It's just x amount of garbage. I know this discussion is going to plunge into specious sophistry. This tactic of annoying people with feigned ignorance, obduracy and obfuscation is rather tiresome. If it is the truth, then it does mean something. If you can't discern the truth, that is not my problem. I hear crap coming from the media and the government constantly that offers NO PROOF AT ALL. They just expect you to believe them. The 9-11 commission report begins with a ridiculous "story" (or information) about the people (they claim) were the "terrorists" behind 9-11. They state what they claim are facts about these people and offer no proof or evidence whatsoever. They just expect people to believe their fabrication. I am NOT obligated to PROVE anything to you or anyone. The so-called "burden of proof" is only necessary IF I give a crap about proving something to someone. And YET I can still make my claims. If anyone wants to call me a liar, or disprove what I am saying, then that is their responsibility because I don't care if they/you believe me or not. Its that simple. It is YOU that has a problem with this concept. I don't want you to believe me, I don't care if you believe me, therefore I owe you no proof of anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 12/04/12 06:20 PM
|
|
To be clear, I said the System is corrupt, (not the "government.") For sure the government has been corrupted by the over all system, but the system and the government are not the same thing. The system is the Banking system of Elite that funds the politicians, the schools, the foundations, colleges etc. The "system" is not merely "the government." The system is such a vague, nebulous term that I took it to mean the government. I don't care what fantasy you use to interpret such a colloquial term, it doesn't alter the fallacious nature of your so-called logic. Instead of dodging the point with minutiae, try addressing the problem regarding your fallacious logic. You apparently don't really read my posts. I have said that the Jewish people do not control, manipulate or own the Media. The Rothschild/Morgan family dynasties do. I have also claimed that the Rothschilds and Morgan family dynasties are not Jews. Ok, so you've found another whacko website and changed your tune. I gave up reading most of the bollocks you post some time ago-just more of same ranting really. Are you really trying to tell me that you've NEVER accused Jews of owning the media? Really? I remember it distinctly, as would many others I'm sure. Come on, JB, surely you don't think Mingle readers are that forgetful? Whatever, it still doesn't alter the fallacious nature of your so-called logic. Typical truther evasion tactics. If you are not aware enough to realize that "a government" is not "the system" then you should get more education on that subject. When I use terms like "the system" I certainly don't mean "the government" You automatically assumed it. It has nothing to do with 'education on the subject'. This is just moronic as it is a vague term that specifies nothing. For example, in Monty Python's Holy Grail in the scene where the king attacks Dennis, the anarchist, the 'system' is the government (e.g. a contraction of 'system of government'). Perhaps it is a cultural anomaly that it has different meanings, or perhaps it is because it is not a very specific term. Whatever, it still doesn't alter the fallacious nature of the logic in your original post. If you are unable to digest this, that is your problem, not mine. There is nothing wrong with my logic. Name calling does not change that. It is poorly though out and is based on innaccurate generalisations, therefore, fallacious. As for the Jews owning the media, yes I have said that but only because the Rothschild's and the J.P. Morgans are thought to be "Jews." They may even claim to be Jews. So if a person believes that all you have to do is claim to be a Jew to be a Jew, then Jews own the Media because they are considered to be Jews. But my claim is that The Rothschild's and the J.P. Morgan family dynasty are not Jewish. They are closer to being Nazi's. (Ashkennazi's who claim to be Jewish) Ok, apology accepted. Now, I will repeat to be clear: THE SYSTEM is corrupt and the system has power and influence over politics, science, universities, grants, salaries, etc.Therefore to trust the system or anyone influenced or dependent on it, is illogical. Back to square one including the same fallacious logic. Explain to me why you are calling my logic fallacious. <it's fallacious to say that something must exist because science hasn't proven its nonexistence> My logic is perfectly sound. 1. IF the system is corrupt... (a premise) It follows that..... anything that is dependent, beholding, or benefited by that system is or may also be corrupt.............and therefore, can't be trusted. Very simple logic. Just read my initial post again, as I covered it earlier. You chose to focus on some crap about the interpretation of 'system' and ignored the rest, obviously. Your premise is based upon poor logic. That makes the rest of it invalid. Please try to comprehend these simple concepts, it's not that difficult. Do you even know what the premise is? Just because you don't believe the premise does not mean it is poor logic. 1. If the premise is: The system is corrupt. (Your agreement or disagreement with the premise is irrelevant) 2. Then it follows that anything born of a corrupt system may not be trustworthy. You cannot dislodge that logic. It is extremely simple. Saying that my premise is based on poor logic is meaningless and is just an opinion. Your opinion or disagreement of the premise is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Tue 12/04/12 06:28 PM
|
|
Do you even know what the premise is? Of course, and it's illogical. Just because you don't believe the premise does not mean it is poor logic. It is logically unsound because it is logically unsound. What I believe is immaterial. 1. If the premise is: The system is corrupt. (Your agreement or disagreement with the premise is irrelevant) Indeed, but it is an unsound premise. 2. Then it follows that anything born of a corrupt system may not be trustworthy. I see 'is' has changed to 'may be'. You cannot dislodge that logic. But the premise is unsound. This is where you're having difficulty. It is extremely simple. 'Simple' being a key word in this case. Saying that my premise is based on poor logic is meaningless and is just an opinion. No, it is logically unsound. Opinion doesn't enter into it. Why is this difficult? Your opinion or disagreement of the premise is irrelevant. Indeed, but it doesn't alter the specious nature of your premise. All the sophist rhetoric under the sun won't change that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meaningless irrelevant response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Tue 12/04/12 06:34 PM
|
|
Meaningless irrelevant response. Unlike your argument? (Note: Sarcasm) So, it is clear that you fail to see why your premise is unsound. When a premise is unsound and illogical, all the logic developed thereafter is rendered specious. Anyway, I have no more time for silly games. See you later. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meaningless irrelevant response. Unlike your argument? (Note: Sarcasm) So, it is clear that you fail to see why your premise is unsound. When a premise is unsound and illogical, all the logic developed thereafter is rendered specious. Anyway, I have no more time for silly games. See you later. That you "claim" my premise is "unsound" is only (your) opinion, thus irrelevant to the fact that my logic is sound. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conclusion is that the system is corrupt.
That is a sound conclusion (and anyone's conclusion who knows anything about History and the fall of the Roman Empire.) It follows that science is also probably corrupt (although not entirely,) but it cannot be trusted (or worshiped) because it is a product of the corrupt system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conclusion is that the system is corrupt. Based on a flawed premise and simplistic use of logic that assumes that all things mentioned are universal & perrennial. That is a sound conclusion (and anyone's conclusion who knows anything about History and the fall of the Roman Empire.) Incorrect, there a numerous reasons for the 'transformation' of the Roman Empire (note: it's a myth that it actually 'fell'), corruption not really being high on that list. You are confused with the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Empire, and even then, corruption is only a feature and not the reason. It was a failure within the constitution that brought about the fall of the Republic. It follows that science is also probably corrupt (although not entirely,) but it cannot be trusted (or worshiped) because it is a product of the corrupt system. 'Is' has now become 'probably' and the premise that was endemic is now "although not entirely". Moreover, you confuse 'trust' with 'worship'. Many make this simple mistake. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something to ponder. "Propaganda is to democracy as violence is to dictatorship" - Noam Chomsky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conclusion is that the system is corrupt. That is a sound conclusion (and anyone's conclusion who knows anything about History and the fall of the Roman Empire.) It follows that science is also probably corrupt (although not entirely,) but it cannot be trusted (or worshiped) because it is a product of the corrupt system. 
|
|
|
|
|
