robot rage survivors rr2 rearmed
 
HomeRR ChatMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 LUNCHB0X

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:18 am

2D4 wrote:
Some things you said made a little sense, some none...

Such as? Just so I may explain them better (this happens sometimes, that's why it's good for other people to review your work).

2D4 wrote:
I think I made a valid point, even if you wave a definition of the word debunked in my face .. fact remains that you also cannot offer conclusive proof that this event could not have been staged, you will have to agree with me on that.

Sorry, but any unbiased observer would not agree with this point of view.

According to your posts, the resolution we can derive from this discussion is the following: "Be it resolved that the government was directly responsible for the September 11 attacks." It was you who made this claim, not me, and it is therefore you who must support this claim. Are you familiar with the concept of burden of proof? I do not have to provide evidence that the government did not produce the September 11 attacks, just to rebut your own evidence and therefore your own claim. By rebutting your arguments, I would win the debate by default.

2D4 wrote:
As for the bush video .. It is explained by no one (including you) how this man states he could have seen the first plane hit the tower on a TV set inside the school !! when the only footage of that hit was released only a day later ! He did not accidently mess up this story beacouse he repeats the same story on multiple occasions and always explicitly mentions it was the first plane ... that is what I meant by logic and common sense ...

Source: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11

(8:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Intelligence Committee Chairs Meet with ISI Head and Possible 9/11 Attack Funder as the Attack Occurs
Meeting Interrupted by 9/11 Attacks - Zamir Akram, an accompanying Pakistani diplomat, leaves the room for a break. While outside, he sees a group of Congressional aides gathered around a television set. As Akram walks up to the TV, he sees the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center. He immediately runs back to the meeting to the tell the others. But even as he gets there, a congressional aide comes in to say that Capitol Hill is being evacuated. The aide says, “There is a plane headed this way.” Mahmood and the rest of the Pakistani delegation immediately leave and attempt to return to the Pakistani embassy. But they are stuck in traffic for three hours before they get there.

(8:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Former President George H. W. Bush Heads off After Spending Night at the White House
Former President George H. W. Bush, along with former First Lady Barbara Bush, leaves Washington, DC, by private jet, bound for a speaking engagement in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Bushes spent the previous night at the White House. They had flown to Washington the previous day to attend several meetings and a dinner. One of the meetings attended by the former president was the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group, which was also attended by Shafig bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers (see (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). They are later informed of the WTC attacks while on their jet. Due to all planes being grounded, they have to land in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

No scenes of the first plane hitting the Trade Center were broadcast on television until late that night, when amateur video footage became available, it was a mistaken recollection on the president's part. There were lots of things going on fast at the time, and he had already been informed of the first airplane crash before even entering the classroom.

2D4 wrote:
As for the so called audio forgery .. I listened to both of them and honestly the first one sounds more authentic to me.The one you call original sounds engineered, polished and has a hollywood reality movie sense to it, you know, the way the thing crackles and switches off at the end ..

Uh-huh... and can you explain exactly how the first one "sounds" more authentic and the other one is not? No, it's bias that is blinding you to accept reliable evidence. The camera crackled and switches off at the end, so? The person was running away from danger and the camera got damaged/switched off, as would happen in a real case. In the first one you see the people running but you do not hear them shouting until much later on in the video near the end. This is completely unrealistic. The building is collapsing, people are running and shouting, but you don't start hearing them until after around 10 seconds that the building starts collapsing. The video is fake.

There is nothing more disgraceful in a debate than providing false evidence.

2D4 wrote:
To me the footage of tower 7's demolition blasts looks very real even if someone can always find a way to explain it away.Fact remains, that tower fell and if it fell due to internal fire .. well .. do you believe that ? The building looks perfectly intact to the last second, no flames can be seen, no windows even break from extreme heat ..yet we are supose to believe it was so hot it made the building go down in freefall speed , neatly in it's own footprints, I don't know about you but I don't buy it.

Alright, so you are claiming that your lack of knowledge in the field of civil engineering is superior to the knowledge of civil engineering experts? The demolition might look "real" to you, but yes, it has been explained. If your blindness and apathy towards reliable evidence is superior to your goal of seeking the truth, then you will find nothing other than your own version of the truth, regardless of whether it is correct or not. This is up to you, but you cannot defend your claim to tohers with it. Tell me, ttruth based on reality, or on "how things look" to you?

2D4 wrote:
I do believe this government has motive, multiple motives .. and yes, I do believe they are willing to sacrifice the lives of a few thousand of their own, in fact I think they are willing to go further ! That is why I want people to wake up and considder what is really going on.The truth will come out sometime right? what ever that is, and by that time you will wish you were right and that it was only all quaida terrorists who had done this.

This is incredibly irrelevant and adds nothing to support your case in the debate. "The truth will come out?" No, because it isn't the truth. You have failed to validate your case, and resort to excuses such as "wake up" and "consider what is really going on". There are empty phrases that mean nothing and do nothing to prove your claim. I might as well say "The moon is made of cheese! Wake up people, the truth will come out and you will be sorry!" This is, of course, a ridiculous and unproductive method of convincing anyone to agree with your argument.

2D4 wrote:
You can believe anything that suits you best, why ? beacouse I can do the same and it is not my perogative to have you think what I think or even to insult anything that is dear to you, such as your fellow countrymen or your government...

First of all, the United States government is not my government. The case is that I find it shameful that people build their cases and lie to other people by saying they have proof that their claims are true, when they clearly do not have anything of the sort. Once again, it was you who decided to enter this debate and you who made the claim that the government was responsible for the September 11 attacks.

It is up to you to support this claim with true and rightful evidence.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:09 am

Well .. I stand by everything I said and if you have even come under the impression I was going to magically deliver what you call proof, where thousands of others that have superior knowledge about this matter have failed then I am really sorry about that but that is not going to happen.My opinion is based on common sense, logic and intuition rather then hard evidence but I never claimed that was otherwise! I may have used the word "proven" but by that I meant: proven to me, in such a way that it convinced me personally.

I have deep respect for the way you present your case .. very solid and detailed .. you should considder a career in law but do not expect me to do the same thing.I still think I made a valid point even if it is my duty to deliver proof by your standards.Just beacouse I cannot produce t hard evidence does not mean my case is nesserasily wrong! If you want to make that point, then it is your turn to produce something conclusive to prove that this event could not have been staged.Just beacouse the "official" story reads that this is a terrorist attack doesn't mean that is automatically the truth and the most credible story! by who's standards ? Not mine.I don't care about experts, they can be bought and you know they (theoretically) can and the american government has a lot of resources .. It just seems very odd to me that a Building that big would go down that precise and that fast, collapsing from heat while no glas is breaking, no flames, not even smoke is visible, I don't buy it, that's all .. and that is my personal godgiven right ! no one has any authority over what I believe or not! I am not telling anyone what they should believe ! Just giving my point of view, so do not tell me I entered this debate beacouse I did not force you to debate with me! you did that all by yourself.
The american government has a reputation for lies and bending the truth, many presidents have been assasinated, there have been numerous cover ups, scandals and secret operations by the cia, - how many weapons of mass destruction did they say they recovered from irak ? come again ? O but it was perfectly okay to invade .. saddam was an asshole - so , what the white house states about anything is not something people should rely on without question and that is what I am doing here.I hope everyone will keep their eyes wide open.When the truth comes out (and yes, that is what i meant) it can also mean I was wrong, let's hope I am !! I will be happy to have my ego take a dent while millions of people will still be alive.If you believe any "official" story about anything without hesitance, how can you even call yourself unbaised ?




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:19 am

I'm going to keep this one short and simple:

The problem I have with conspiracy theories such as these is, not that people do not have the right to speak out and express skepticism, but that they decide to twist and distort the truth to others, in order to convince them that they can truly support their cases.

You state that your opinion is based on common sense, logic, and intuition, but it is not. It has been so far based on mere speculation without support. You were the one who pronounced this claim and presented arguments. I refuted them. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have rebutted each of the arguments you presented. You have failed to provide proper arguments, based on conclusive evidence, to support your claim that the United States government was responsible for the September 11 attacks. Is this or is this not true?

Quote :
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.
― Abraham Lincoln


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:23 am

Carl wrote:
I'm going to keep this one short and simple:

The problem I have with conspiracy theories such as these is, not that people do not have the right to speak out and express skepticism, but that they decide to twist and distort the truth to others, in order to convince them that they can truly support their cases.

You state that your opinion is based on common sense, logic, and intuition, but it is not. It has been so far based on mere speculation without support. You were the one who pronounced this claim and presented arguments. I refuted them. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have rebutted each of the arguments you presented. You have failed to provide proper arguments, based on conclusive evidence, to support your claim that the United States government was responsible for the September 11 attacks. Is this or is this not true?

Quote :
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.
― Abraham Lincoln

As far as saying that it would be wrong to present doubts about the official version of the events on 9/11 as facts or proof, well you are correct and your reasoning is stainless there.You have however not refuted anything in my opinion, you have dismissed one point of view with another but not in such a way that it is now clear to all mentally sound people that this could not possibly have been the work of the americans themselves, at least, I have not seen anything to make that conclusive.Therefore, theoretically it could still have been done in such a way.And yes my opinion is based on the previously mentioned faculties (such as intuition) and those do not have to be supported until the time they have been proven wrong.

In my opinion you have not rebutted the claims I presented, you just marked them as being unsuitable as valid proof, which is totally not the same thing.To say that the story officially released to the public is made up of the "real facts" is something that is just as much opinion as anything else, however unsuitable or unpopular.The question remains if the people have been presented with the real facts, because that is an essential detail in Abrahams statement.I conclude therefore that we will have to wait until the time truth will surface and make this discussion obsolete.Until then, keep one eye open, o wait, make that two .. being one-eyed .. has another undesirable quality to it .. but that is something for another page.

Short summary: Neither of us really know for sure.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2530

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:04 pm

Ok, I don't have to time to read your 3,000 words, but... you actually think that the twin towers were destroyed by it's own government?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:14 am

IN GOD I TRUST wrote:
Ok, I don't have to time to read your 3,000 words, but... you actually think that the twin towers were destroyed by it's own government?

Basically .. yes



I know this is not something to say lightly .. and Carl made a very solid case pointing out
there is no definate proof they did (as much as there is no way to rule out or disqualify they have .. )
Yet I believe it went down that way, sadly, let's hope and pray I am wrong




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:53 am

2D4 wrote:
You have however not refuted anything in my opinion, you have dismissed one point of view with another but not in such a way that it is now clear to all mentally sound people that this could not possibly have been the work of the americans themselves, at least, I have not seen anything to make that conclusive.

Conslusive: adjective (of evidence or argument) having or likely to have the effect of proving a case; decisive: conclusive evidence.
The truth is that you have failed to support your side of the case with evidence. Therefore, your side of the case has been proven invalid for all practical reasons.

2D4 wrote:
Therefore, theoretically it could still have been done in such a way.And yes my opinion is based on the previously mentioned faculties (such as intuition) and those do not have to be supported until the time they have been proven wrong.

Your intuition seems to be devoid of any perception of truth or fact. You are dispelling conscious reasoning and rational thought, without any supporting arguments.

2D4 wrote:
In my opinion you have not rebutted the claims I presented, you just marked them as being unsuitable as valid proof, which is totally not the same thing.

Here we go again. Definition of rebutting...
Oxford English Dictionary: claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.
Merriam-Webster English Dictionary: to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof / to make or furnish an answer or counter proof.
Dictionary.com Unabridged: to refute by evidence or argument / to oppose by contrary proof / to provide some evidence or argument that refutes or opposes.

2D4 wrote:
To say that the story officially released to the public is made up of the "real facts" is something that is just as much opinion as anything else, however unsuitable or unpopular.

You claim that "the government might still behind all of this" somehow, but fail to provide anything to support this. If you really know the "truth" then how come you cannot defend it properly? No, you are being unreasonable. You continue to adhere to your blind belief without anything that can be deemed reasonable to support it, and everything to oppose it. Your theories are baseless and you refuse to accept it.

2D4 wrote:
The question remains if the people have been presented with the real facts, because that is an essential detail in Abrahams statement.

Your logic is deeply flawed. You claim that we cannot be sure that the real facts are the "real" facts, which is a pretty sad excuse in any practical situation or discussion, considering that you have failed to produce any countering facts of your own. You imply that all theories are equally likely and should therefore be treated as equally valid. This is not the case. All evidence points that the government did not produce the September 11 attacks.

2D4 wrote:
I conclude therefore that we will have to wait until the time truth will surface and make this discussion obsolete.Until then, keep one eye open, o wait, make that two .. being one-eyed .. has another undesirable quality to it .. but that is something for another page.

Oh really? Nothing can demonstrate your biased point of view better than this statement. According to you, the truth will only "surface" if it supports your side of the case, when all evidence seems to be pointing to the contrary. This is nothing but an empty assertion and adds nothing to any reasonable discussion.

2D4 wrote:
Short summary: Neither of us really know for sure.

A much more accurate and useful summary of this discussion would be the following:
All proper arguments and conclusive evidence point that the government did not produce the September 11 attacks.

Your side of the case has been reduced to saying nothing more than "we can never be sure". However, the purpose of this discussion is not to produce absolute tautologies, but to bring us as close possible to the truth. Your side of the case failed to use any conclusive evidence to advance your claims.

Therefore, your claims have been proven to be baseless.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:58 am

I totally disagree , not only that but I think you are acusing me of being biased when this in fact applies to yourself.All the assumptions you make about the claims I suposedly make are flawd.I never claimed to know the truth (read my previous statement) I also never said I could produce any evidence, it was you who stated I should be able to do so, according to whom? As much as you, I do not have to prove anything, to have a mere opinion, and as an opinion or cause, my viewpoint has not been proven wrong, you are completely wrong about that.No evidence has shown that 9/11 could not possibly have been a false flag operation, just as much as no one has been able to conclusively prove that it has been staged.

That being said, I came to the conclusion that neither of us can make a case by any definate means.The fact that I cannot prove something does not mean it is necessarily not true ! that is a clear example of perverted logic.There are so many things I cannot prove, does that mean they do not exist ? I never claimed that when the truth would surface, that it would mean I am right .. I just never did, in fact I even went so far as to say that I hope it will turn out I am wrong ! Quote that for a change ! As much as I have been making a case, you forget that you have been making your own aswell and to state that the fact I cannot support my case means that it has therefore been proven to be a fallacy is not only corrupt logic (see previous mention) but in that case it would also apply to you, since you have in return not been able to produce one conclusive logical argument from wich we can derive without any doubt that 9/11 is what the american government says it is.I am therefore free to express my opinion as much as you are at liberty to support yours! Your claim that your viewpoint is supported by proof is simply not true, reducing it to another opinion.I cherish and will enjoy my freedom to voice my opinion and you will have to respect that, wheather you like it or not





Back to top Go down
View user profile
jork
He Who Wants it Brung
avatar

Posts : 2047

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:27 pm

Somewhere in your word labirint I read about Twin Towers, you were arguing who destroyed them, ofcourse it could be anyone with a lot of power, even the government itself, they needed a reason to attack Iraq back then, on the other hand it obviously was "terrorists", only thing that is not clear from which side they came.




btw Guest ik what u did...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rrlobbychat.com
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:30 pm

2D4 wrote:
I totally disagree , not only that but I think you are acusing me of being biased when this in fact applies to yourself.

How, exactly? Is a biased person one who makes reliable assumptions based on evidence, or one who makes empty assumptions not based on evidence? Answer this question truthfully for yourself. The difference is that I go with assumptions based on facts, while you do not.

2D4 wrote:
All the assumptions you make about the claims I suposedly make are flawd.I never claimed to know the truth (read my previous statement)

Really?

2D4 wrote:
It has also been proven that the attack was staged by the cia and was not a terrorist attack

As I said before, your claims are baseless, but you refuse to admit this.

2D4 wrote:
I also never said I could produce any evidence, it was you who stated I should be able to do so, according to whom?

Umm... yes you did. That is why you sent me all those videos and links, claiming that the September 11 attacks were staged by the CIA, but it was only after I refuted each and every one of them that you decided to change what you said.

2D4 wrote:
As much as you, I do not have to prove anything, to have a mere opinion, and as an opinion or cause, my viewpoint has not been proven wrong, you are completely wrong about that.No evidence has shown that 9/11 could not possibly have been a false flag operation, just as much as no one has been able to conclusively prove that it has been staged.

Well, if you believe any claim is valid regardless of whether it has evidence or not, I might just as well say that the moon is made of cheese, because I cannot prove it to be otherwise. This is exactly what you are doing at this stage of the discussion, precisely because you do not have any arguments left to support your case.

2D4 wrote:
That being said, I came to the conclusion that neither of us can make a case by any definate means.The fact that I cannot prove something does not mean it is necessarily not true ! that is a clear example of perverted logic.There are so many things I cannot prove, does that mean they do not exist ? I never claimed that when the truth would surface, that it would mean I am right .. I just never did, in fact I even went so far as to say that I hope it will turn out I am wrong ! Quote that for a change !

Indeed I shall. You say neither of us can make a case by definite means. But we can. That's what debates are for. The fact that you cannot prove something means you cannot justify it, which means you are making assumptions based on nothing other than prejudice.. According to you, since we cannot know anything for sure, then we should not seek the truth, for it can never be proven to be the truth. That is a clear example of perverted logic. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of Occam's Razor. Any claim can be falsely justified with the excuse that it cannot be empricially proven to be otherwise. This is a form of corrupt reasoning.

2D4 wrote:
As much as I have been making a case, you forget that you have been making your own aswell and to state that the fact I cannot support my case means that it has therefore been proven to be a fallacy is not only corrupt logic (see previous mention) but in that case it would also apply to you, since you have in return not been able to produce one conclusive logical argument from wich we can derive without any doubt that 9/11 is what the american government says it is.

You have nothing left to support your case. This would not apply to me, because I have been able to produce conclusive and logical arguments based on evidence. You cannot justify your claim. Therefore, though both are opinions, mine is valid and justified, yours is not.

2D4 wrote:
am therefore free to express my opinion as much as you are at liberty to support yours! Your claim that your viewpoint is supported by proof is simply not true, reducing it to another opinion.I cherish and will enjoy my freedom to voice my opinion and you will have to respect that, wheather you like it or not

Of course you are free to express your opinion, but then you would forfeit your claim that your claim is justifiable or reasonable, since you are unable to support it. My viewpoint is supported by arguments and evidence. It is therefore yours that is reduced to a baseless opinion.

I would be glad to end this debate with the following conclusion, nothing less and nothing more:
2D4 has been unable to justify his case that the September 11 attacks were produced by the American government.

Undoubtedly, I suppose you will continue to post excuses for this, but the truth is that you cannot deny this statement.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2530

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:53 pm

There was another plane that same day going to crash into the Capitol in Washington D.C. The plane never got there because a men and women risked their lives to stop it. The plane crashed in Pennsylvania and never reached it's destination. We know this because they were talking on their cell-phones. The 4 men that hijacked the plane were terrorists from Iraq.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:22 am

jork wrote:
Somewhere in your word labirint I read about Twin Towers, you were arguing who destroyed them, ofcourse it could be anyone with a lot of power, even the government itself, they needed a reason to attack Iraq back then, on the other hand it obviously was "terrorists", only thing that is not clear from which side they came.

Jork, I agree with you

I said what I wanted to say and I will take back my previous statement that there is proof for my ideas, beacouse there is obviously not, otherwise we would have known by now.I still think 9/11 could very well have been an inside job, so regardless of what you may say, I can still exercise that opinion as such.

Through history we see many examples of governments torching their own parliaments or staging a fake attack on their own to be able to declare martial law, to gain power or push their agendas they otherwise could not have.Hitler came to power the same way and currently the president of belarus, white russia used the same tactics to regain controll and effectively take out all of his opponents.

Let me repeat: I really do not hope or thrill at the idea that 9/11 was set up that way.In fact i really hope Carl is right.Apparently he has constructed for himself a reasoning that leads him to believe he has undeniably proven that there is only 1 way this unfortunate event could have taken place.I am not of that opinion but I am not going to reply to all the statements made about my messages beacouse I have said what i wanted to say and will leave it at that.I will always respect another opinion about this matter, it would have been nice if that was reciprocated.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2530

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:28 pm

The same thing can be said about everything. Nothing is certain, did people actually walk on the moon? Were the pyramids built by aliens? Etc. some are outlandish but people still argue about it. It's just human nature to want to be right about your perspective. 2D4 says he hopes that he is wrong but he still doesn't want his opinion to be thought false and the same goes for carl.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:29 pm

But there is a difference, my friend.

The same difference that dismissed the heavens being part of a crystal sphere (as it was once believed) rotating around the Earth. The same difference that dismisses the stars being moved by angels. The pursuit of knowledge and wisdom is based on the theories that are best explained by logic and reason.

Science is not exact. It changes. Old theories are replaced by new ones that can better explain the world around us. For now, this is the best we have. Believing in empty and unsupported theories cannot accord with the true pursuit of true knowledge and wisdom. I suggest you read more on the concept of Occam's Razor.

Without this principle, we could not have built our body of knowledge and wisdom, since anyone could refuse it by unsupported claims of uncertainty. Claiming that nothing is certain and therefore impling that every theory is equally likely does not support the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2530

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:48 pm

Uh, I was just saying that if you look at it at the perspective of someone with no knowledge of either of the points that he would not know which was true or not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:01 am

I checked Occam's Razor and this can be explained as: The simplest explanation is the most likely one.I agree with that.The problem is that from my viewpoint my explanation is the simplest and most likely one, opposite to what seems to be the most logical one for Carl.The fact that many people believe at one point that something is true and it is accepted as established or common belief has never been very convincing to me.At one point in history everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth .. and that the earth was flat .. obviously .. you could be tortured for claiming otherwise.In nazi germany it was popular belief that jews were all kinds of evil, millions of people believed it, I claim this is not true.Yet it was the simplest or should we say the most convenient explanation for the germans who needed their country to have a common enemy again, something to fight and to overcome to be a great nation again.Much like the war on "terror" ? how can they even be at war with terror ? but to rule, they obviously need an enemy, so let's create one..
I agree with Carl on Occam's Razor, as a way tp aply common sense.I also agree with IGIT, in spite of all I have said, it remains to be just a theory, until it is not or proven to be wrong but as far as the ego goes .. isn't that a common handicap we all share? even those who point it out in other people.I do believe how ever objectivity increases when someone does not have the need to be right, so it's actually a good point you make.I will have to consult myself about this. Will I feel frustrated when it turns out Carl is right ? It's an interresting question, but I think relief will win over the feeling of loss of personal importance.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:28 am

2D4 wrote:
I checked Occam's Razor and this can be explained as: The simplest explanation is the most likely one.I agree with that. The problem is that from my viewpoint my explanation is the simplest and most likely one, opposite to what seems to be the most logical one for Carl.

Wrong. That is a common misconception of Occam's Razor. Here's another excerpt:

The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation (e.g. metaphysical Solipsism). Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.

For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects. The principle recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.

2D4 wrote:
The fact that many people believe at one point that something is true and it is accepted as established or common belief has never been very convincing to me.At one point in history everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth .. and that the earth was flat .. obviously .. you could be tortured for claiming otherwise.In nazi germany it was popular belief that jews were all kinds of evil, millions of people believed it, I claim this is not true.Yet it was the simplest or should we say the most convenient explanation for the germans who needed their country to have a common enemy again, something to fight and to overcome to be a great nation again.Much like the war on "terror" ? how can they even be at war with terror ? but to rule, they obviously need an enemy, so let's create one..

The Nazi belief in the inferiority of Jews was supported neither by any conclusive evidence nor by proper arguments. As you said yourself, it was inspired by hatred and prejudice based on the political situation of the time, nothing else. This is not what we are discussing here.

The farther back you go into the past, the more scientific theories you will find that are now known to be wrong. Why? Because science is a constantly changing accumulation of testable knowledge. It will grow and change over time because it has to and because it is supposed to.

This does not exactly apply to the September 11 situation. What we are talking about here is not a scientific matter, and not our knowledge of the universe, but a large-scale social public event. In fact there was nothing, scientifically speaking, that truly supported the Geocentric or the Flat Earth model over Heliocentric Spherical ones, other than the same misconception you stated earlier of Occam's Razor: "the simplest explanation is the most likely one".

Your argument would go against your own case, since it is not supported by conclusive evidence or proper arguments.

2D4 wrote:
I agree with Carl on Occam's Razor, as a way tp aply common sense.I also agree with IGIT, in spite of all I have said, it remains to be just a theory, until it is not or proven to be wrong but as far as the ego goes .. isn't that a common handicap we all share? even those who point it out in other people.I do believe how ever objectivity increases when someone does not have the need to be right, so it's actually a good point you make.I will have to consult myself about this. Will I feel frustrated when it turns out Carl is right ? It's an interresting question, but I think relief will win over the feeling of loss of personal importance.

I have no reason to believe the government's version of what happened over conspiracy theories, in a subjective manner. In an objective manner, however, I do. What this means is that I believe in the government's version of what happened, not because I want to defend the government, but because it is the most logical, reasonable, and plausible theory we have so far. Based on the facts and evidence we have, it is the most accurate theory. That is all.

It's a nice discussion to have with you though, 2D4.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:52 pm

Carl wrote:
For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects. The principle recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.

Okay, you made that clear.I do not think my theory brings up more new assumptions or is more complicated then the official story.In fact stones always fall down instead of upwards due to gravity, if you are talking about science.Terrorism is not exactly a new thing but neither is conn and deceit, betrayal and secrecy.The false flag tactics as explained are in fact very commonly used in history by all kinds of rulers in old and new times, I would therefore promote that terrorism is relatively new and certainly a theory that is not favored by occam's standards as likely.

The example you make about classical physics is contradictory.If the theory that makes the fewest new assumptions would be the right one then the more recent theories on physics would have to be wrong, becouse they make the most new assumptions (they also are the less simple of the two options)We know that is not the case, which does not speak for occam's razor as a reliable way of discerning truth.

The very assumption that my theory is more outlandish,new or complicated by any standards, lacks all basic objectivity as a starting point from which to build your theory.You have basically made the conclusion in advance, I am not sure you are aware of this fact though ..


Carl wrote:
The Nazi belief in the inferiority of Jews was supported neither by any conclusive evidence nor by proper arguments. As you said yourself, it was inspired by hatred and prejudice based on the political situation of the time, nothing else. This is not what we are discussing here.

I have to disagree .. in a very obvious way the east, the "axe of evil" , israel's enemies, and the muslim faith are being stigmatized and demonized as the reason for the "terrorist" attack.It is not white christians who are blacklisted.In the grande scheme this is just another important move on their chessboard.They may have officially only blamed osama bin laden but it was a reason to invade and even now still be at war in afghanistan wasn't it? Justified by the suposed attack on american homeland.My theory stands.These cases may vary in certain respects but not in the one you mention .. how do you know in this event hatred and prejeduce is not involved ? Beacouse, america sure has been waging war on a good number of countries .. calling them evil, unholy and offcourse they are the only ones to decide who can have an atomic weapon and who cannot.. Isn't it true that when ever war happens, emotions such as you mentioned are involved ?

Carl wrote:
The farther back you go into the past, the more scientific theories you will find that are now known to be wrong. Why? Because science is a constantly changing accumulation of testable knowledge. It will grow and change over time because it has to and because it is supposed to

That makes sense. I have to agree here. I do not see the point you are trying to make though


Carl wrote:
This does not exactly apply to the September 11 situation. What we are talking about here is not a scientific matter, and not our knowledge of the universe, but a large-scale social public event. In fact there was nothing, scientifically speaking, that truly supported the Geocentric or the Flat Earth model over Heliocentric Spherical ones, other than the same misconception you stated earlier of Occam's Razor: "the simplest explanation is the most likely one".

and here is why: Whenever you bring up science, occam's razors, to make your points about your ideas being valid and mine being flawd, you cannot now conveniently turn around and now state that the whole matter is not a scientific one .. you will have to make a choice .. either it is or it is not.I regard this as inconsistent especially since you repeatedly pointed out to me I had no "scientific" proof.(wich is still true)

Here you make another point that supports the fact that occam's razor is far from flawless .. obviously the "old" model or established way to see things will always have to win , simply beacouse it makes the fewest new asumptions, topped by the fact it is percieved as the simpler one.(Yet the earth is not really not flat, check this scientific fact for yourself)

Carl wrote:
Your argument would go against your own case, since it is not supported by conclusive evidence or proper arguments. 2D4.

You are not supporting this with anything.It is just another opinion no more no less.I do not see how my arguments would go against my case at all.As I have explained in this reply.It is also another variation on the argument you used earlier, being that since I fail to deliver proof, it therefore proven to untrue or flase.A clear case of logic in reverse.

Carl wrote:
I have no reason to believe the government's version of what happened over conspiracy theories, in a subjective manner. In an objective manner, however, I do. What this means is that I believe in the government's version of what happened, not because I want to defend the government, but because it is the most logical, reasonable, and plausible theory we have so far. Based on the facts and evidence we have, it is the most accurate theory. That is all.

When ever you ideas are not conclusively supported by facts, neither scientific in nature or philosophical /pseudo-scientifical like occam's razor, you will have to realize that in an objective sense they will have to be classified as speculation.In spite of the fact that they have been commonly established as the official explanation

Carl wrote:
It's a nice discussion to have with you though, 2D4.

I agree it is nice, but it is also a bit straining and personally I would favor a more open and less rigid (and finger pointing and acusing) way of discussing this with you.We are not in the court room you know .. we are not even getting payed to do this.I feel it is perfectly fine to disagree .. it's a thing that happens all the time, I hope you agree with me! (on that )






Last edited by 2D4 on Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:58 pm

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects. The principle recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.
Okay, you made that clear.I do not think my theory brings up more new assumptions or is more complicated then the official story.In fact stones always fall down instead of upwards due to gravity, if you are talking about science.Terrorism is not exactly a new thing but neither is conn and deceit, betrayal and secrecy.The false flag tactics as explained are in fact very commonly used in history by all kinds of rulers in old and new times, I would therefore promote that terrorism is relatively new and certainly a theory that is not favored by occam's standards as likely.

Not exactly. The theory with the fewest new assumptions is that the attacks were carried out by a terrorist organization. The most likely organization in this case would be Al Qaeda, since they had sent prior warnings to the government before the attacks (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden). Your theory, on the other hand, suggests that the government was somehow planning all of this behind the scenes, which adds not only unnecessary, but unsupported assumptions behind the theory.

2D4 wrote:
The example you make about classical physics is contradictory.If the theory that makes the fewest new assumptions would be the right one then the more recent theories on physics would have to be wrong, becouse they make the most new assumptions (they also are the less simple of the two options)We know that is not the case, which does not speak for occam's razor as a dependable way of discerning truth.

Take for instance the example of Newtonian Graviation versus General Relativity. Back then, Newton's theories fit all experimental data, so it was the most accurate theory available. However, newer experiments carried out later on in more modern times found some discrepancies (albeit very small) in the predictions made by Newtonian Gravitation. Eventually, a new theory was formulated that addressed these issues and proposed an even more accurate model of gravity.

In even more recent times, new theories are being formulated to address certain issues of General Relativity and its incompatibility with Quantum Mechanics (in situations such as singularities and the birth of the universe). Some of these theories, such as String and M-Theory, propose a new model of Quantum Gravity.

Occam's Razor is not meant to disprove hypotheses that are supported by experimental data, but rather support the formulation of hypotheses that make the fewest new assumptions. Newer theories filled the discrepancies of classical physics. This is an example that will help you understand how the concept of Occam's Razor is sometimes misused. Once again, you have misunderstood the principle behind Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is a guideline for formulating theories to explain natural phenomena, not disproving them.

2D4 wrote:
The very assumption that my theory is more outlandish,new or complicated by any standards, lacks all basic objectivity as a starting point from which to build your theory.You have basically made the conclusion in advance, I am not sure you are aware of this fact though ..

You fail to understand my explanation. It seems I will have to re-quote myself:

I have no reason to believe the government's version of what happened over conspiracy theories, in a subjective manner. In an objective manner, however, I do. What this means is that I believe in the government's version of what happened, not because I want to defend the government, but because it is the most logical, reasonable, and plausible theory we have so far. Based on the facts and evidence we have, it is the most accurate theory. That is all.

I have analyzed the valid evidence and information we have available, and made a decision from it. Your theory is not justified because it is not supported by valid evidence and information available, but rather the starting point that: "The government produced the September 11 attacks."

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
The Nazi belief in the inferiority of Jews was supported neither by any conclusive evidence nor by proper arguments. As you said yourself, it was inspired by hatred and prejudice based on the political situation of the time, nothing else. This is not what we are discussing here.
I have to disagree .. in a very obvious way the east, the "axe of evil" , israel's enemies, and the muslim faith are being stigmatized and demonized as the reason for the "terrorist" attack.It is not white christians who are blacklisted.In the grande scheme this is just another important move on their chessboard.They may have officially only blamed osama bin laden but it was a reason to invade and even now still be at war in afghanistan wasn't it? Justified by the suposed attack on american homeland.My theory stands

I do not understand how you are disagreeing with me, nor do I understand how this supports your theory. This is exactly what I said. I stated that blaming Muslim extremists for this, without any supporting evidence carries no more validity than the inferiority of Jews based on Nazi beliefs. From what I can see from the rest of the message, I believe that you are trying to say that Muslim extremist groups were blamed in order to provide a justification for the War on Terror. However, this does not make your theory any more valid. What you are stating is a potential motivation for the attacks, but the fact that you do not have evidence to support it says that it cannot support your theory.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
The farther back you go into the past, the more scientific theories you will find that are now known to be wrong. Why? Because science is a constantly changing accumulation of testable knowledge. It will grow and change over time because it has to and because it is supposed to
That makes sense. I have to agree here. I do not see the point you are trying to make though

I was addressing your assumption that all, if not most, current theories will be proven wrong in the future, as in the case of the September 11 attacks. Just because scientific theories will be made more accurate over time, does not mean everything will be disproved, but will rather be made more accurate in certain aspects and in certain situations that have not been addressed.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
This does not exactly apply to the September 11 situation. What we are talking about here is not a scientific matter, and not our knowledge of the universe, but a large-scale social public event. In fact there was nothing, scientifically speaking, that truly supported the Geocentric or the Flat Earth model over Heliocentric Spherical ones, other than the same misconception you stated earlier of Occam's Razor: "the simplest explanation is the most likely one".
and here is why: Whenever you bring up science, occam's razors, to make your points about your ideas being valid and mine being flawd, you cannot now conveniently turn around and now state that the whole matter is not a scientific one .. you will have to make a choice .. either it is or it is not.I regard this as inconsistent especially since you repeatedly pointed out to me I had no "scientific" proof.(wich is still true)

What? When did I "conveniently turn around" by stating that this matter is not a scientific one (which is true), and thus that Occam's Razor does not apply (which I never stated)? Please do not twist my words and take them out of my mouth to make them sound different. The point I was making was that, just because science has progressed over the ages by replacing old theories with new ones, does not mean that the msot common theory of the September 11 attacks will be "disproven" in the future. In fact, I have decided on my viewpoint by making use of Occam's Razor and applying it to the evidence we have available in order to construct a more accurate theory.

2D4 wrote:
Here you make another point that supports the fact that occam's razor is far from flawless .. obviously the "old" model or established way to see things will always have to win , simply beacouse it makes the fewest new asumptions, topped by the fact it is percieved as the simpler one.(Yet the earth is not really not flat, check this scientific fact for yourself)

Uh, no. I never said that the most popular model is the correct one, nor that it is the one that makes the fewest new assumptions, and once again you have gone back to the "simplest theory is the best" misinterpretation. The earliest evidence of a spherical (or close to spherical) Earth goes back to Classical Greece. If you apply the principle of Occam's Razor incorrectly, then you would come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat (unless you have evidence that says otherwise). However, Occam's Razor favors hypotheses that make the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. Why would you say that the most common version will always be the one with the fewest assumptions?

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
Your argument would go against your own case, since it is not supported by conclusive evidence or proper arguments.
You are not supporting this with anything.It is just another opinion, no more no less

Wow 2D4, I thought we had already clarified this. You yourself admitted that you have no conclusive evidence or proper arguments to support your theory. How exactly is this "just another opinion" may I ask?

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
I have no reason to believe the government's version of what happened over conspiracy theories, in a subjective manner. In an objective manner, however, I do. What this means is that I believe in the government's version of what happened, not because I want to defend the government, but because it is the most logical, reasonable, and plausible theory we have so far. Based on the facts and evidence we have, it is the most accurate theory. That is all.
When ever you ideas are not conclusively supported by facts, neither scientific in nature or philosophical /pseudo-scientifical like occam's razor, you will have to realize that in an objective sense they will have to be classified as speculation.In spite of the fact that they have been commonly established as the official explanation

Yes... that is what I said. Unsupported theories are just blind speculation, and should be considered to be based on nothing other than prejudice (or at least a biased point of view) if other supported theories are available. My theories are supported by conclusive evidence and proper arguments, yours are not.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
It's a nice discussion to have with you though, 2D4.

I agree it is nice, but it is also a bit straining and personally I would favor a more open and less rigid (and finger pointing and acusing) way of discussing this with you.We are not in the court room you know .. we are not even getting payed to do this.I feel it is perfectly fine to disagree .. it's a thing that happens all the time, I hope you agree with me! (on that )

I suppose? What do you mean "more open and less rigid" though? If we want a real discussion that comes to valid conclusions, we must use an appropriate form of discussion.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:36 pm

I do not agree on most if not all points, if it be the claims you make on so called evidence, or your assumptions about what I am suposedly claiming.In my version of reality something is still theoretically possible until it is proven to be impossible.I do understand your occams razor theory but disagree on what is the most "likely" or "probable" scenario.Furthermore I do not feel subject to occam's perception of reality, and no the purpose of this discussion for me is NOT to prove or disprove anything .. rather to have a open discussion.Your idea that something must be wrong beacouse I can not prove it still defies all reasonable logic, that just doesn't make sense.Just to be clear: You do not hear me say that I know for sure it was an inside job ! or: It was a staged event.I am saying it's my opinion they may have done that and I still do.

Offcourse this is all very entertaining .. but I just can't spend hours of my day explaining myself and justifying every line someone else decides to quote, and to be frank, I don't think I want to.My conclusion so far ? We disagree .. but to me that is fine, I do not have a problem with it at all.Tell me, do you ?




Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:18 am

I am convinced something disturbing is going on in the world arena but it is complicated and apears to have multiple layers.Watch this video and judge for yourself if you think this is true.
Remember: it is just a youtube video .. just becouse it is on youtube doesn't make it automatically true but there seems to have been tampering with the osama tapes, I even heard the government admitted to having falsified osamas testimonies but I do find it hard to believe.So risky, when it all comes out.



*Disclaimer
I do not claim to prove or
disprove anything.My sources
are unverified and no rights
such as on the way I spend
my time, can be derived from
it.My intention is not and will
never be to unintentionally
offend or step on anyones
feelings.This message offi-
-cially is for entertainment
purposes only.






Last edited by 2D4 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:25 am

Another curious "coincidence" that made me go: Hmmmm
Here is what you do to see it:

1. Open your browser and type: www.
2.then type illuminati in reverse, that would be: itanimulli
3.Finish with .com
4.Press enter

5.Let me know what you think Smile

(do not worry, it's safe, i tested it
myself)


*Disclaimer
I do not claim to prove or
disprove anything.My sources
are unverified and no rights
such as on the way I spend
my time, can be derived from
it.My intention is not and will
never be to unintentionally
offend or step on anyones
feelings.This message offi-
-cially is for entertainment
purposes only.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:30 am

It seems you have ended all support for a reasonable discussion then, since you admit you have nothing to support your theories, and I have rebutted each and every one of your arguments in turn using conclusive evidence and proper arguments. Kudos. Smile

As for the illuminati address... hasn't it occured to you that someone registered that domain name on purpose to redirect it? Wow.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:14 pm

Carl wrote:
It seems you have ended all support for a reasonable discussion then, since you admit you have nothing to support your theories, and I have rebutted each and every one of your arguments in turn using conclusive evidence and proper arguments. Kudos. Smile

As for the illuminati address... hasn't it occured to you that someone registered that domain name on purpose to redirect it? Wow.

You seem to think you have completely showered me with evidence and such, well, I will leave you under that impression then, it's okey.It's not that I don't want to engage in meaningfull discussion but that means something else for me I guess.A lot of fingerpointing back and forth with no result, I don't know , I have better ways to spend my time.I did not have the impression you were looking for common ground either, more to just prove every single point I make to be wrong, well, everyone has his hobbies shall we say.

Ehm did I say anywhere that the nsa took hooked this adres to their website on purpose or anything ? I didn't make any assumptions about anything, just showed it beacouse I thought it was fun.

Ps. I was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job but I have to admit something has changed.Now I am even more convinced they planned it, after looking at some other material that deals with the molten metal residues and footage of the demolitions popping out from the side.You can basically just see it happen.Plus testimonies about al quaida, who they really are and how they are fabricated as a terrorist organisation, simply disgusting.The war on terror is fraud, it's a fake, to scare you into accepting their laws, their invasions, their microchip, don't fall for it, it's simply too convenient.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3440

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:23 pm

I want to add one more thing.
I may sound a little rude there, it is absolutely not my intention to offend anyone, especially not you Carl, so my apology if I may have.Offcourse your feedback is appreciated, as long as everyone can freely express their opinion without being dragged to court shall we say.

In fact I think it makes any discussion so much more interresting when opinions oppose.I would even go further and say, that I believe wars and dispute of any kind do not arise from the fact we as a people do not agree with eachother, but rather that we don't know how to properly disagree, to disagree respectfully and in the right way




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   

Back to top Go down
 
LUNCHB0X
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Robot Rage Survivors Forums :: Robot Rage :: Robot Rage - General Talk-
Jump to: