Zeitgeist movie/documentry - Page 5

On November 23 2010 03:51 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 03:49 tloapc wrote: if you are ignorant of a subject why do you side at all? all you are doing in choosing a side you are ignorant on is make yourself doubly ignorant what is wrong with just admitting you do not know?? there are many things I admit I don't know due to not studying the issue at all.

do you know what happened on Sept 11 2001 in New York?

i was going to point out the same thing, you pretty much summed up why you are not fit to have this (if any) discussion if you are gong to blindly believe what you randomly assume is the majority then do so and be ignorant by yourself but dont argue when you will bring nothing to the table, if i were still a mod i would ban you for polluting this thread with your stupidity.

You cannot argue for something you just believe cuz others do -_-, and Feticeira dared to compare me with blind fundamentalists lol.


Also stop making shit up, 6 to 28% believe gov. was involved? rofl does that sounds kind of retarded to anyone else... isnt there kind of a big gap betwen 6 and 28? lol

Also there are roughtly the same % of moon landing deniers? are you serious? ill bet you your fucking bankroll that is not true and i havent made research thats how sure i am, so you either bet it or you get the fuck out of this thread.


edit: lol edited to remove so many insults, but damn his ignorance is 100 times more insulting than anything i could come up with.

On November 23 2010 03:54 tloapc wrote: ok lets us Pearl Harbor as an example it was not released until 50 years after the fact that Roosevelt had specific knowledge that could have prevented the catastrophe but what do you think the majority of expert historians said 25 years ago to someone who said such a thing was possible? and if you were alive back then, what would you conclude? Seeing how you would never really know and using your illogical reasoning it seems 25 years ago you would go ahead and blindly side with the majority of historians

not true and not relevant. Many many people immediately thought FDR knew in advance, further logic would maintain that since he wanted US to get involved in WW2 he would allow pearl harbor to occur. I have no problem at all with people saying that the gov't allowed 9/11 to occur to get us into the middle east. I have a problem of saying they demolished the twin towers. So I guess equivilent would be FDR let pearl harbor occur, he did not orchestra the destruction of the USS Arizona

On November 23 2010 04:02 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 03:33 auffenpuffer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +   somalia is a failed state which is currently semi anarchist and was a complete anarchy in the southern from 1991-2006..no one has ever said anything different as far as i know...ur the first one to even say somalia has no place in an anarchy topic. Not sure if serious. This is almost as retarded as "communism cannot function because SOVIET UNION" except this shows even greater ignorance of the topic.   as for Spain from what i've done it seems to be a decently succesful anarchist society which wasn't really full anarchist...i mean the CNT did participate in gov't actions and such. But I fail to see how the CNT controlled parts of Spain are more relevant to any discussion then the state of Somalia...maybe it is more relevant for some reason, but i don't get why. The CNT had representation in Caballeros government, which is not to say the government ruled in Catalonia (before 1937 that is). I tried to explain. In anarchism oppressive institutions are dismantled. A gang of murderer driving around with machine guns and shooting at peasants would seem quite oppressive to me. Anarchism is more than lack of violence of monopoly, as you seem to understand it, but a society organised on direct democracy, freedom of people and so on. You can just read "What would an anarchist society look like?" in the FAQ. Then compare it to Somalia and you'll see my point if it still remains unclear. Anarchists (or at least I) do not believe that just by smashing the state we would somehow magically arrive at a Utopia. Instead we must build democratic institutions which are ready to take power back to the people when such systems of power as capitalism and state are brought down.   As for the Chomsky quote...Chomsky is pretty close to batshit insane, and also gee what a surprise an anarchist saying an anarchy was good almost every example of anarchy given has led to violence or has been part of an otherwise violent movement...russian revolution, haymarket incident, somalia (anarchy), french revolution all very violent Now could you even try please. "Haymarket incident was violent, thus anarchism is a violent ideology". ----------____________________________________---------- I pretend that you commented on serious issues like propaganda by deed in 1930s, and response to that instead: Anarchism certainly has been part of a violent movement being the anti-authoritarian wing of the revolutionary workers movement. In early 1900 many anarchists also believed in "propaganda by deed" committing assassinations and violent attacks against fascists (such as Adolf Hitler) and corporate leaders. That proves nothing of anarchism, only about the tactics used by past generations. The actually violent part of French revolution was pretty much the antithesis of anarchism: a secret police hunting down counter revolutionaries. In Russia first things Lenin did was getting rid of the anarchists: in Ukraine Nestor Makhno lead anarchists militias against the whites and succeeded in establishing libertarian society, which lasted all until the Red Army came and killed everyone. Another example is the fortress city of Kronstad, which was taken over by anarchist seamen and conquered by the state. So better examples would be the areas controlled by EZLN or Chicago in 1929. i never meant to say somalia shows anarchy can't work. Just that it was an anarchy and is extremely violent. In fact from what I've read there are many places and services in Somalia which have almost certainly benefited from anarchy. So from what I'm taking away from your argument is this. Anarchy in a perfect world would work due to humans being taught via community education to respect each other and the eventual society of well educated humanitarians would no longer need a gov't as it would be peaceful (at least more peaceful then one which requires a gov't) and since this society lacks a gov't to restrict rights people would have complete freedom (as long as they don't harm others?). Therefore a society of well educated peaceful humans no longer needs gov't so therefore anarchy is the ideal form of gov't. Is this the correct reasoning? Because if so I have no problem with that line of thought at all, if not please correct me. Also if your saying more direct democracy as a form of gov't rather then anarchy, it's the same thing as the above paragraph, sure that could work fine but direct democracy is logistically hard to do, but if done could work well assuming a well educated public. The problem I have with anarchy is that humans are very not ideal and I do not see us making any improvement. We are a very fearful, illogical, primal race and due to this evolutionary short coming I do not see anarchy without violence as ever occuring, or at least not in my lifetime or any time in the next century or two. For the same reason Communism can not work due to the inherent greed humans have, not because it is violent/oppressive or anything like that.

yes human nature is horrible.... thank god we have fucking aliens running the government... oh wait, we dont.... we have those same humans but this time we give these terrible humans insane amounts of power to rule over us... ooops

You prove this statement false by your statements in this thread

ur arguing semantics.

] doesn't matter which is more likely, what matters and is the real question is are both of these things possible the answer is yes

not logical to me. By this logic we were created by an almighty god 6k years ago, evolution is a myth, carbon dating doesn't work as can be seen by the numerous times it has given false results. Earth is the center of the universe, etc. Are both things possible, in any case yes. This does not mean that both are equally likely or acceptable as arguments. An example of one of these where I have zero clue
Is M-theory or quantum loop gravity correct? I have no fucking clue and there is not a clear majority among experts so I remain neutral and clueless.

Ya, like the housing bubble and financial crisis right? Let me end this with what my momma used to always tell me, "If everyone thinks the same thing then someone aint thinking"

again not fully getting the point but yes? from what i've always heard the majority of experts are in relative agreement of the housing bubble and reasons for collapse. Are you saying that I disagreed with people who warned of the bubble 4 years ago? If so then I have no clue, this is one of the subjects I'm ignorant on is the bubble and such. I don't really know why it occurred or what fucked it up etc. I have been told it was deregulation of the market which is what most people agree on, past that I have zero clue and would doubtfully ever argue on the financial collapse unless I was in a really bad mood.

how is this not relevant? you brought up Pearl Harbor and are trying to now tell me in 1985 the majority of experts and/or the majority of Americans thought or believed that President of the United States knowingly allowed 2,500 Americans die so the whole country could go to war where another 50-60 million people would be killed

I do not see how that is possible as most Americans do not know this is the case today?

also I have not seen a single soul claim Bush JR was the brilliant mastermind behind 9/11

i was going to point out the same thing, you pretty much summed up why you are not fit to have this (if any) discussion if you are gong to blindly believe what you randomly assume is the majority then do so and be ignorant by yourself but dont argue when you will bring nothing to the table, if i were still a mod i would ban you for polluting this thread with your stupidity. You cannot argue for something you just believe cuz others do -_-, and Feticeira dared to compare me with blind fundamentalists lol.

i don't believe it just because others do. I believe it because from what i have read/learned about it I believe it was not a conspiracy as which is also what the large majority thinks. We arn't randomly assuming majority. The paper i cited earlier says "Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely not have led to overall collapse. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering
though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives"

Also stop making shit up, 6 to 28% believe gov. was involved? rofl does that sounds kind of retarded to anyone else... isnt there kind of a big gap betwen 6 and 28? lol

Read the Scripps Howard polls part and New York Times / CBS News polls. Those give numbers of about 6-28% for gov't planted explosives or had involvement. I admit the numbers have a huge gap but this is due to question wording (we all know is super important) and due to the "maybe' responses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls

Also there are roughtly the same % of moon landing deniers? are you serious? ill bet you your fucking bankroll that is not true and i havent made research thats how sure i am, so you either bet it or you get the fuck out of this thread.

"There are subcultures worldwide which advocate the belief that the Moon landings were faked. James Oberg of ABC News stated that claims made that the Moon landings were faked are actively taught in Cuban schools and wherever Cuban teachers are sent.[3][4] A 1999 Gallup poll found that 6% of the American public doubted that the Moon landings had occurred and that 5% had no opinion on the subject,[5][6][7][8] which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[5] Officials of Fox television stated that such skepticism increased to about 20% after the February 15, 2001 airing of that network's TV show entitled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Seen by approximately 15 million viewers,[6] the 2001 Fox special is viewed as having promoted the hoax claims.[9][10]
A 2000 poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% do not believe that American astronauts have been on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups.[11] In 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon.[12] Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened.[13]"

I misread earlier and thought it was 28% of americans when it was actually 28% of russians, that's my fault. But still between 5-20% depending on the poll are skeptical of Americans landing on the moon...Is this close enough to 6-28% so that I can have some of your bankroll ? I wouldn't bet your bankroll on the intelligence of the average american. It just always disappoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_lan...iracy_theories#cite_note-Borenstein-5

[B]On November 23 2010 04:18 tloapc wrote:+ Show Spoiler + how is this not relevant? you brought up Pearl Harbor and are trying to now tell me in 1985 the majority of experts and/or the majority of Americans thought or believed that President of the United States knowingly allowed 2,500 Americans die so the whole country could go to war where another 50-60 million people would be killed I do not see how that is possible as most Americans do not know this is the case today? also I have not seen a single soul claim Bush JR was the brilliant mastermind behind 9/11

no no, not relevant because this is a different case. I do not always agree with majority when it comes to deciding the motives of anything. So I would not just agree with the majority of experts on whether or not FDR knew about pearl harbor occurring beforehand, just as I do not agree with the majority of Americans who think the gov't had no part in 9/11. I do think we knew about it coming in advance and did nothing due to being idiotic (if Bush was smarter I would buy the conspiracy theory maybe).

On November 23 2010 04:14 palak wrote: Show nested quote + You prove this statement false by your statements in this thread ur arguing semantics.

more like trying to fix fallacies

On November 23 2010 04:14 palak wrote: Show nested quote + doesn't matter which is more likely, what matters and is the real question is are both of these things possible the answer is yes not logical to me. By this logic we were created by an almighty god 6k years ago, evolution is a myth, carbon dating doesn't work as can be seen by the numerous times it has given false results. Earth is the center of the universe, etc. Are both things possible, in any case yes. This does not mean that both are equally likely or acceptable as arguments. An example of one of these where I have zero clue Is M-theory or quantum loop gravity correct? I have no fucking clue and there is not a clear majority among experts so I remain neutral and clueless.

but if there was a clear majority then you would know the answer right?

On November 23 2010 04:14 palak wrote: Show nested quote + Ya, like the housing bubble and financial crisis right? Let me end this with what my momma used to always tell me, "If everyone thinks the same thing then someone aint thinking" again not fully getting the point but yes? from what i've always heard the majority of experts are in relative agreement of the housing bubble and reasons for collapse. Are you saying that I disagreed with people who warned of the bubble 4 years ago?

no I am saying you did or would agree with the majority who labeled such people who tried to warn of the bubble kooks/crazy/idiotic/insane etc

If so then I have no clue, this is one of the subjects I'm ignorant on is the bubble and such. I don't really know why it occurred or what fucked it up etc.

the point that I am trying to make would be that in this area with your reasoning, you are capable of just siding with the "experts" or "majority" who basically say there is nothing to see here and everything is fine so move along and go spend spend spend this country out of debt as that is what they claimed then and claim now and this is a very dangerous line of thought for you and those around you

I have been told it was deregulation of the market which is what most people agree on, past that I have zero clue and would doubtfully ever argue on the financial collapse unless I was in a really bad mood.

deregulation is what most people agree on? I only wish lol
most "experts" say it was because of not enough regulation

in order of ur quotes.

1. Not fixing fallicies, i used a slight exaggeration and u are correcting me on it. That's semantics when it comes to personal ideas.

2. No, I would say I think they are probably right, but I would never argue someone on a point unless I knew at least something about it.

3. Doubtful. If I know nothing about it then I would not say I know one is right or wrong. This again gets down to things like when it is a "clear majority" for my sake I'll say 80% of experts in the field. Just picking a number out of my ass

4. I would never label them as crazy or insane. I would have no opinion of them. I have zero clue wtf is going on with financial markets especially at the time.

5. If forced to choose a side without the ability to do personal research on the topic before hand then yes I would side with the majority of experts on a technical subject. We all do this, I don't get why it's such an annoyance for you. I mean you almost certainly believe black holes exist. Yet I am fairly certain you can not prove it. You are just agreeing with the majority of experts who have studied the topic.

6. Deregulation=not enough regulation...hoorah we agree on something.



also at baals thing about human nature is horrible therefore gov't is worse then anarchy. I just disagree with the following logic. Given the current state of civilization and human development being ruled by a possibly very corrupt few allows for a more peaceful and pleasant life for the majority which is why we currently need gov't.

This logic however is highly debatable and I'm open to new ideas.

On November 23 2010 03:45 palak wrote: If I used the "follow the experts" for any subjective matter where there is no real yes or not then yes this would be a flaw. But when it's speaking of techinical things like a building falling over, how quarks move, etc then there is no problem. Everyone follows this. No one in this thread can run an experiment and prove to me quarks exist but we all accept that they do because scientists studying quantum theory tell us they exist and show us the math to prove it which we all go meh ok they exist.

ok then, can you prove to me 3 skyscrapers "fell over" on 9/11? beyond a doubt?

this imo should be important for you to be able to answer/do perfectly since 9/11 is the basis of just about every federal government expansion into your liberties that many in this country do not just allow, but welcome

On November 22 2010 16:17 Feiticeira wrote: take action? hahahaha old nonsense is old, Afterlife. People have seen it. People have laughed at it, and people have laughed at the people who didn't laugh at it.

Having fun there in your little bubble?

On November 23 2010 04:51 tloapc wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 03:45 palak wrote: If I used the "follow the experts" for any subjective matter where there is no real yes or not then yes this would be a flaw. But when it's speaking of techinical things like a building falling over, how quarks move, etc then there is no problem. Everyone follows this. No one in this thread can run an experiment and prove to me quarks exist but we all accept that they do because scientists studying quantum theory tell us they exist and show us the math to prove it which we all go meh ok they exist. ok then, can you prove to me 3 skyscrapers "fell over" on 9/11? beyond a doubt? this imo should be important for you to be able to answer/do perfectly since 9/11 is the basis of just about every federal government expansion into your liberties that many in this country do not just allow, but welcome

again I fail to understand your logic (possibly because I'm tired). I mean if you mean "fell over" as me being able to prove to you that they were not demolished then n I mean I can give you the reports published by the gov't and private organizations etc which say they collapsed with a demolition crew, but if you if you think the majority of people who have analyzed the collapses were given false information or whatever then I can't prove you wrong beyond a doubt, but I can call you wrong, misinformed, etc. The same as you could not prove to someone beyond a doubt that JFK was killed by Oswald or that the Moon landings actually occurred but when someone comes to you and says is was a conspiracy or that they did not occur you would feel fine calling them wrong.

On November 23 2010 04:46 palak wrote: 6. Deregulation=not enough regulation...hoorah we agree on something.

err, I don't think we do unless you agree that deregulation=getting rid of or removing regulation

also, don't get me wrong - I do not care that much - it's just a leak in your game that I am trying to help you fix - nothing more

for instance I do not believe black holes exist nor do I know
I'm so ignorant on the subject that each absolute outcome is completely likely

the bottom line of what I'm trying to tell you is that you will believe something you do not know to be true just because a clear majority have in their mind "proved" it

question everything

^that is exactly what it is. You pretty much just gave the dictionary definition of deregulation word for word

On November 23 2010 05:06 tloapc wrote: also, don't get me wrong - I do not care that much - it's just a leak in your game that I am trying to help you fix - nothing more for instance I do not believe black holes exist nor do I know I'm so ignorant on the subject that each absolute outcome is completely likely the bottom line of what I'm trying to tell you is that you will believe something you do not know to be true just because a clear majority have in their mind "proved" it question everything

when does a belief become knowledge? So for example when do you believe something so much that it becomes a fact? When there is no evidence to the contrary or simply to the point where you refuse to accept evidence to the contrary? It's a slippery philosophical border which is a bitch to argue.

Don't say something like "i know because i read it" that doesn't work, reading is just further adding to one side of the evidence. All the word belief requires is that the evidence is not 100% absolute which is the case in almost everything in the world.

Example I do not "believe" Obama was born in America, I know it based off the facts I have been given. But technically since people present contradictory facts to what I know I should not be allowed to say "i know it" i should have to switch to "i strong believe it" this is just arguing semantics again.

Perhaps the black holes was a bad example, i just figured it would work since most ppl have an opinion. Better example maybe...is do you "know" where obama was born, or do you "know" that evolution is correct, etc.

then why did you say deregulation equals not enough regulation? -.-a

you said "I only wish lol most "experts" say it was because of not enough regulation"...to which i responded, ya deregulation=not enough regulation, meaning that there had been deregulation which led to their being not enough regulation which caused the market to collapse, or so i'm told. Just trust me we agree on this point

to believe what the majority of "experts" believe is stupid hasnt history showed you anything? if you were born in a different time you would have thought that the earth was flat and held by 4 elephants on a giant turtle...

On November 23 2010 05:06 palak wrote: when does a belief become knowledge? So for example when do you believe something so much that it becomes a fact?

belief never becomes knowledge in the future. once belief becomes knowledge it is in the past so the answer to your question of when is, "in the present"

On November 23 2010 05:06 palak wrote: Perhaps the black holes was a bad example, i just figured it would work since most ppl have an opinion. Better example maybe...is do you "know" where obama was born, or do you "know" that evolution is correct, etc.

I only know what I don't know and I don't know much

so no and no

On November 23 2010 05:32 Baal wrote: to believe what the majority of "experts" believe is stupid hasnt history showed you anything? if you were born in a different time you would have thought that the earth was flat and held by 4 elephants on a giant turtle...

i would have and I would have been wrong

as would u? I hate the different time argument. As if you were born 3 thousand years ago in say China you would not have considered the Emperor to be God even though you would have been taught that from birth and also would have been taught that questioning authority is wrong. Your mindset towards questioning and life is purely a product of your times. So yes I believe what the majority of experts in a given scientific field or line of thought say is true through the evidence at their disposal. If I find or hear about evidence which contradicts these beliefs/facts/knowledge then I will alter my beliefs of what I say I know. Just as if someone genuinely presents solid irrefutable evidence that evolution is wrong, that god is real, that black holes do not exist, that 9/11 was a demolition etc then I will change my thoughts on the subject. But I have yet to read or hear evidence which has not been disputed to my liking. You also seem to really hate people that believe in god and call them blind believers..yet most people who believe in god do it because they have evaluated the scientific and other evidence and have come to that conclusion on their own. That's why it's so hard to convert people between religions and damned near impossible to get someone to stop believing a conspiracy theory or vice versa, once someone has looked through the evidence and come to a conclusion on their own they will very rarely change their mind especially when an altering of the belief will alter their world view. Personal example of this is I know people who are far smarter and more successful then me who are extremely extremely religious. Do I think they are blind idiots, no, are they misinterpreting the facts in front of them (imo yes).

e.g. Your view the world (I think) as a place run by corrupt wealthy powerful people who use gov't and money to manipulate people into their own goals like oil and war profitering. So when something like 9/11 comes along it is incredibly easy for you to make what you see as a logical jump of, US gov't wants to invade the middle east, 9/11 gives them the perfect opportunity to do so, therefore US gov't likely helped in 9/11. That way when you find a minority of people who present some evidence to justify your suspicions you are more accepting of that evidence then you are of evidence which contradicts your own personal world view. I don't wanna put words in your mouth and this may easily be wrong...if so feel free to bitch me out...i'm just stating what i've observed from ur posts.




tloapc good answer.