Zeitgeist movie/documentry

Anyone saw it? its fucking amazing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_the_Movie

I've seen it long time ago, and fully agree with it.

Sad that so few people have seen this movie.

the 2nd one is coming out in January 11, people need to come together and take action

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.

but really:

people need to come together and take action

what do you mean by this?

from that wiki, this film is at least 70% bullshit...the only part i may agree w/ would be the section on religion but even then I have a good feeling it's all crap

On November 22 2010 16:21 palak wrote: from that wiki, this film is at least 70% bullshit...the only part i may agree w/ would be the section on religion but even then I have a good feeling it's all crap

watch the movie before you criticize it please.

The arguments in zeitgeist are good and new. Those that are new are not good and those that are good are not new: everything that I would agree in it has been said a hundred years ago. There is no God, governments do not care about you but are run by rich people for their own good, wars are not fought for ideals of justice but for private gain. Albeit zeitgeist leaves out all critique of capitalism and focuses solely on "international bankers", as if everything would turn out good if we dismantled FED and went for gold standard and money created by states.

btw this is based on wikipedia. The film itself was way too tiltinducing for me to watch.


Only new things in the film are the conspiracy theories which I do not find very interesting or convincing.

Anyhow for those who found zeitgeist interesting I could recommend Chris Harmans "A people's History of the World" which is somewhat more serious attempt at explaining what is wrong the world. I can upload pdf once I get home, can't find a link now.



btw an article about the religion part:

Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25/#feature


Well said imo.

On November 22 2010 16:18 Feiticeira wrote: but really: Show nested quote + people need to come together and take action what do you mean by this?

By that I mean you should start saying NO too every fucking weird laws that your governments and other governments pass. Don't agree with everything the government tells you just because they said its a good idea an its for your safety or your own good, examine the situation before you come to a conclusion. But this might be to late for some people.

I don't wanna say that my country my government is good or anything but i m proud because they said fuck you to US nuclear ships and that is nuclear free.

can you please lay out some kind of plan for how we should be saying no to laws that foreign governments pass? it sounds like a riot.

On November 22 2010 16:34 AfterLife wrote: Don't agree with everything the government tells you just because they said its a good idea an its for your safety or your own good, examine the situation before you come to a conclusion. But this might be to late for some people.

Funny how you say this, then don't apply it to Zeitgeist... it has been pretty much thoroughly debunked as conspiracy nonsense.

I dont understand why Zeitgeist took it too far to start spilling so much bullshit when all 3 things are in essence truth, religion is BS and christs existence cannot be historically proven and a lot of it is based on pagan rituals, the 9/11 was an obvious demolition job and the Federal Reserve is indeed fucking evil and is getting richer and richer every day, so why use lies to support the truth? so silly.

the corporation, who killed the eletric car, food inc, zeitgeist, sicko, super size me... they all add up to show us how it all works

Your solutions for action:

Almost everything said about religion in the movie is false. I recommend just skipping that section and picking up on the 9/11 and federal reserve parts. If you really want to read about the similarities of different world religions and mythologies I recommend anything by Joseph Campbell. Zeitgeist takes some things that are true and attempts to make a slam dunk case by inserting tons and tons of bullshit that is completely fabricated. I will give one quick example of a BS lie from the movie (and there are many). It says that Horus was born of a virgin. This is not true, he was actually born from Isis (who is not a Virgin) when she laid on top of the dead corpse of Osiris in a canoe. Another version of the same story is when Set had Osiris dismembered he threw his penis into the river and it was eaten by catfish. So when Isis gathered up all of his body parts she made a golden penis to put in its place and then had sex with the dead body and conceived. So in both versions of the story she was not a virgin.

I will say however that watching Zeitgeist did get me interested in religion and and comparative mythology because after seeing it I looked all of the stories up and read them to verify what I had seen in the movie. Unfortunately due to the lies in the first 1/3 of the film it tends to discredit in the eyes of many people the other 2/3.

+1 on zeitgeist being full of a lot of bullshit. I mean they do make some good points too, but to watch it as if its all fact and not research for yourself is a bit silly really

To continue what genjix started on the topic of "what is to be done?"

I should state that I do think the message of the film that the government uses religion to control people is true. But the stuff they use to discredit all of the religions is about 85% bullshit. Another funny lie is yes it is true that Dionysus turned water into wine because he was the lord of the vine. The reason why Jesus did this in the gospel was to show Greeks that he had more power than their gods. And yes it is very likely that the people who wrote the Gospels made that story up to persuade people to convert to Christianity. That is about where the accuracy of the Dionysus comparison ends -_- Also he was not crucified he was ripped into pieces by the Titans and the only thing left was his heart which zeus used to reconstruct him in the womb of his earthly mother Semele.

On November 22 2010 17:28 auffenpuffer wrote: To continue what genjix started on the topic of "what is to be done?"

all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point.

On November 22 2010 16:43 Baal wrote: religion is BS...and a lot of it is based on pagan rituals

100% right imo

christs existence cannot be historically proven

by that logic neither can alexander the great, siddhartha gautama, socretes, plato, zeno,Hippocrates, or any other ancient person...it's pointless to argue it

9/11 was an obvious demolition job

that's complete bullshit

Federal Reserve is indeed fucking evil and is getting richer and richer every day

meh probably true

9/11 was def a demolition job there is no doubt about it. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to bring a massive skyscraper to the ground at free fall speed. In fact it burns at its HOTTEST EVER around 1800ish degree's Fahrenheit. Steel burns at 2750 degrees. Also building 7 came down at freefall speed exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by an airplane it simply had a fire inside. No steel structure has ever came down at free fall speed due to a simple fire. It is absolutely impossible.

On November 22 2010 17:51 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On November 22 2010 17:28 auffenpuffer wrote: To continue what genjix started on the topic of "what is to be done?" all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point.

anarchy is extremely violent just look at somalia...humans are a violent species, if left w/o a gov't we will commit large amounts of violence and inevitably form into separate groups of violent thugs to provide us with protection from other groups...this system might end up better for us then the current gov't system which is debateable...but to say violence and anarchy arn't related is wrong when you look at human nature.

laws not enforced at gunpoint...child support, divorce agreements, tax evasion, speeding, running a red light, no glass in public parks, no drinking if under the age of 21, no drunk driving, etc etc etc....often these lead to resisting arrest which is enforced through force/gunpoint (what other way is there to get someone to stop resisting arrest)

On November 22 2010 18:10 Xervean wrote: 9/11 was def a demolition job there is no doubt about it. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to bring a massive skyscraper to the ground at free fall speed. In fact it burns at its HOTTEST EVER around 1800ish degree's Fahrenheit. Steel burns at 2750 degrees. Also building 7 came down at freefall speed exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by an airplane it simply had a fire inside. No steel structure has ever came down at free fall speed due to a simple fire. It is absolutely impossible.

says the person w/ no structural engineering experience (i assume)...the vast majority of engineers who have analyzed the world trade center bombings believe that it was not caused by a controlled demolition...plus even if ur going to try and claim that it was a conspiracy in order to get the war on terror started etc a controlled demolition is the most out of the way retarded thing to do...i tend to hold if someone pulls off a conspiracy theory successfully they have put a lot of thought into it, so which is more believable

1. evil person/group in the gov't decides to start the war on terror. Without anyone knowing they aquire the funds and people (easily for them) to demolish the world trade centers. They then somehow sneak in thousands of pounds of explosive into the world trade centers weeks in advance and put it in place. This requires not only strategic placement on support beams which are a bitch to get to, but it also requires drilling into the support beams and making the structure no longer safe. So they somehow drill into massive support beams in an office filled with thousands to tens of thousands of people without anyone hearing anything? Really? OK well lets assume everyones def. They then make sure that Bush disregards the memo's from the CIA saying bin laden is going to attack the twin towers (easy enough). Once the towers are attacked they wait 56 minutes after the first impact and 102 minutes after the 2nd impact to detonate the explosives. They also somehow manage to get the explosives to start on the exact floor the planes hit since it is clear that both towards started collapsing from the floors of impact and not from the bottom as is the way every other controlled demolition is done. The evil group pulls all this off and pays off or kills the thousands/tens of thousands of people who would need to be silenced for this conspiracy to work.


2. Evil group wants the war on terror to start. They make sure Bush doesn't take the Bin Laden CIA report very seriously which allows for the attacks to take place.

I mean it's not like the towers needed to collapse for the US to go crazy and attack places. After 9/11 even if the towers were still standing and we had only lost a few hundred-a thousand lives we still would have invaded Afghanistan no problem and then probabily invaded Iraq anyway.

also i have no clue wtf ur talking about with steel burning...as temperature increases solid material looses strength, it does not need to burn (melt?) in order to collapse under the weight of a giant fucking part of a building on top of it, it just needs to become weaker and gravity will do the rest.

The problem is that even if the top portion of the tower was weakened and collapsed a bit, the damage caused by the heat would have been contained at the top of the tower. Also if part of the tower collapsed it would have sunk down at an angle instead of collapsing free fall.

You failed to comment on building 7 collapsing at free fall and it was not hit by a plane.

You need look no further than the military industrial complex for a motive. The companies with government contracts make so much fucking money every time we go to war. They would do anything to get into a war! But wars are extremely unpopular with the American people. To get around this they stage false flag attacks such as the Gulf of Tonkin, to get us into Vietnam. Bin Laden is a joke sponsored by the CIA because we need a boogieman. In early 2001 the CIA found him on dialysis in Dubai at an American hospital and let him go. (He was top 10 on the FBI).

The government is corrupt as fuck! wake up yo!

ps. yes I meant melt

On November 22 2010 17:51 Baal wrote: all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point.

All what concepts?

I certainly agree that freedom is only to be found in anarchism, which is why I posted those posters of anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World. Since you reject violence I would assume that syndicalism is close to your heart but guess not then.

anarchy is extremely violent just look at somalia...humans are a violent species, if left w/o a gov't we will commit large amounts of violence and inevitably form into separate groups of violent thugs to provide us with protection from other groups...this system might end up better for us then the current gov't system which is debateable...but to say violence and anarchy arn't related is wrong when you look at human nature. laws not enforced at gunpoint...child support, divorce agreements, tax evasion, speeding, running a red light, no glass in public parks, no drinking if under the age of 21, no drunk driving, etc etc etc....often these lead to resisting arrest which is enforced through force/gunpoint (what other way is there to get someone to stop resisting arrest)

Firstly Somalia has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is more than absent of monopoly of violence. Freedom in anarchism is not found by abolishing society and all it's rules, but organising society in a way in which everyone can have a true say on issues concerning them, and ensuring that laws and rules serve goals accepted by all members of the community, instead of serving the interest of the wealthy. More you can read at the link below.



Secondly even in cases like Somalia where the states violence machinery collapses bloodshed is not a common result. David Graeber, one of the best known anarchists of our days, gives an example of when he was doing field research for anthropological study at Madagascar. He was at a town somewhat distant from the capital, and at one point the government practically gave up of the are. People were not paying taxes, and police would not come if called. Now things continued pretty much as usual, and Graeber estimates that for every Somalia there are 10 Madagascars.

Thirdly a more relevant example of actual anarchism is Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. CNT and FAI (CNT being anarcho-syndicalist union and FAI being the anarchist federation of Iberia) took over the area and dismissed government. It worked out very nicely, well enough for Noam Chomsky to say call it the "highest point of western civilization, and a beacon of hope".

Here is anarchism explained briefly http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

People were also arrested planting bombs on the George Washington Bridge. This was reported by multiple news stations and was soon after removed and never mentioned again.

Also you think the structure was just weakened? Here is MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO! 2750 degrees plus!

The news report of the George Washington Bridge bombers.

On November 22 2010 16:43 Baal wrote: religion is BS and christs existence cannot be historically proven

Jesus of Nazereth is a documented, historical figure. This is fact. He existed - whether or not he is the son of God is obviously up for debate, but the man existed.

On November 22 2010 19:04 Xervean wrote:+ Show Spoiler + The problem is that even if the top portion of the tower was weakened and collapsed a bit, the damage caused by the heat would have been contained at the top of the tower. Also if part of the tower collapsed it would have sunk down at an angle instead of collapsing free fall. You failed to comment on building 7 collapsing at free fall and it was not hit by a plane. You need look no further than the military industrial complex for a motive. The companies with government contracts make so much fucking money every time we go to war. They would do anything to get into a war! But wars are extremely unpopular with the American people. To get around this they stage false flag attacks such as the Gulf of Tonkin, to get us into Vietnam. Bin Laden is a joke sponsored by the CIA because we need a boogieman. In early 2001 the CIA found him on dialysis in Dubai at an American hospital and let him go. (He was top 10 on the FBI). The government is corrupt as fuck! wake up yo! ps. yes I meant melt[s/poiler]

sky scrapers are designed to fall ontop of themselves...the slanting building idea has been brought up and again almost all engineers say that gravity and the building design would have caused the collapse without the need for any demolish crew.

building 7 is also believed to have collapsed due to the same effects of fire burning for a long time which lead to a weakness in the structure causing floor 13 (i think) to collapse which brought down the building.

i never said there that there isn't a motive, i just find it highly unlikely that they would go through all the trouble of bringing down the buildings themselves when all they needed was for the attack to occur...pretty sure we agree the gov't does many fucked up things to justify wars that are perceived to be beneficial to the US gov't. American-Mexican war is the blatent example of that but for some reason no one brings it up in these threads

On November 22 2010 19:10 auffenpuffer wrote:[spoiler] Show nested quote + On November 22 2010 17:51 Baal wrote: all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point. All what concepts? I certainly agree that freedom is only to be found in anarchism, which is why I posted those posters of anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World. Since you reject violence I would assume that syndicalism is close to your heart but guess not then.   anarchy is extremely violent just look at somalia...humans are a violent species, if left w/o a gov't we will commit large amounts of violence and inevitably form into separate groups of violent thugs to provide us with protection from other groups...this system might end up better for us then the current gov't system which is debateable...but to say violence and anarchy arn't related is wrong when you look at human nature. laws not enforced at gunpoint...child support, divorce agreements, tax evasion, speeding, running a red light, no glass in public parks, no drinking if under the age of 21, no drunk driving, etc etc etc....often these lead to resisting arrest which is enforced through force/gunpoint (what other way is there to get someone to stop resisting arrest) Firstly Somalia has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is more than absent of monopoly of violence. Secondly even in cases like Somalia where the states violence machinery collapses bloodshed is not a common result. David Graeber, one of the best known anarchists of our days, gives an example of when he was doing field research for anthropological study at Madagascar. He was at a town somewhat distant from the capital, and at one point the government practically gave up of the are. People were not paying taxes, and police would not come if called. Now things continued pretty much as usual, and Graeber estimates that for every Somalia there are 10 Madagascars. Thirdly a more relevant example of actual anarchism is Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. CNT and FAI (CNT being anarcho-syndicalist union and FAI being the anarchist federation of Iberia) took over the area and dismissed government. It worked out very nicely, well enough for Noam Chomsky to say call it the "highest point of western civilization, and a beacon of hope". Here is anarchism explained briefly http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

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.

sure violence doesn't always occur immediately after anarchy occurs, but why would violence occur in a group that is left to themselves when they are already all familiar with themselves...many successful anarchy examples like the madagascar one are of small communities left to themselves, is anyone actually surprised those communities don't need gov't. I mean many small neighborhoods or even towns/cities can function fine w/o a gov't...but i find it hard to believe that an area as vast as say the US or China will be able to function without large amounts of violence and the need for a gov't. So small towns, sure anarchy is cool...large areas probably need gov't.

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.

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

palak, you're obviously correct but who cares. People who believe the twin towers going down was a controlled demolition are clearly morons, do you care what they think?

Scroll up and check out the pictures I added of molten steel, the fire fighters testimony, and the coverup of the George Washington Bridge bomb attempt.

On November 22 2010 19:15 Xervean wrote:+ Show Spoiler + People were also arrested planting bombs on the George Washington Bridge. This was reported by multiple news stations and was soon after removed and never mentioned again. Also you think the structure was just weakened? Here is MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO! 2750 degrees plus!

i'm far to lazy to type out all the crap so just read this site

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

On November 22 2010 19:41 Xervean wrote: Scroll up and check out the pictures I added of molten steel, the fire fighters testimony, and the coverup of the George Washington Bridge bomb attempt.

if the gov't was meaning to bomb the bridge why would they catch themselves in the act? that just makes no sense

On November 22 2010 19:38 Feiticeira wrote: palak, you're obviously correct but who cares. People who believe the twin towers going down was a controlled demolition are clearly morons, do you care what they think?

conspiracy theories that are completely false just usually piss me off

here's a question the conspiracy theorists never ask themselves:

if there really was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC by the US Government and there is genuine evidence proving it.. why are the only people talking about it retarded conspiracy theorists on the internet?

Why aren't the Washington Post or the New York Times printing this shit on the front page? I'm pretty sure a Government conspiracy to kill thousands of American Citizens is a big story.

LOL Because the cops and the FBI aren't in on it and arrest people with explosives? Also that website proves nothing LMFAO!

On November 22 2010 19:48 Feiticeira wrote: here's a question the conspiracy theorists never ask themselves: if there really was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC by the US Government and there is genuine evidence proving it.. why are the only people talking about it retarded conspiracy theorists on the internet? Why aren't the Washington Post or the New York Times printing this shit on the front page? I'm pretty sure a Government conspiracy to kill thousands of American Citizens is a big story.

Because people are told what to think on the news and never question anything.

On November 22 2010 19:52 Xervean wrote:+ Show Spoiler + LOL Because the cops and the FBI aren't in on it and arrest people with explosives? Also that website proves nothing LMFAO!

again to lazy to type
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

giant multibillion dollar conspiracy theory and they don't pay off the cops in that region to ensure the bombs are planeted? So you seriously think it's possible that they laid tons of explosives after drilling into support beams in a crowded office building yet they fuck up on the bridge...wow....also i'm still confused why people are actually saying thermite was used when it isn't an explosive....almost all complex conspiracy theories seem to come about by people who think they know what the fuck they are talking about going around spouting false facts/logic

What i don't understand is that you watched the movie and did all the research on the first 3rd of the movie and realized holy fuck they are wrong about nearly everything. Yet you then go on and accept the next 2/3 of the movie as if they wouldn't again horribly distort reality in order to try and prove a point.

You don't pay off cops because the more people who are brought in on the conspiracy the more likely it is that it will be discovered. You would basically hire a black ops team and that would be the extent of your exposure.

That website doesn't prove anything. The video I posted rapes your theory of aluminum.

On November 22 2010 19:41 Xervean wrote: Scroll up and check out the pictures I added of molten steel, the fire fighters testimony, and the coverup of the George Washington Bridge bomb attempt.

if you have 110 floors of concrete, steel, other metals, and of course everything that was in each of those floors, which i would say is quite a fucking ton of weight, crash down causing a huge amount of friction, everything will heat up. Try rubbing your hands together. the faster you do it the hotter it gets. Imagine thousands of tons of materials crashing down. do you honestly not believe that it will stay in its normal temperature on a normal day?

On November 22 2010 20:09 Xervean wrote: You don't pay off cops because the more people who are brought in on the conspiracy the more likely it is that it will be discovered. You would basically hire a black ops team and that would be the extent of your exposure. That website doesn't prove anything. The video I posted rapes your theory of aluminum.

u didn't read the website, u literally just glanced through and said o it doesn't prove anything cuz my youtube videos are better.

and the cops thing is you just agreeing with my whole problem with your conspiracy theory, why the fuck would u pay to have people bring down the towers which requires buying the silence of at least a hundred people (demolition crews, security guards, people who wondered in, etc) when all they needed to do was make sure bush let the attacks occur which was as simple as just letting GW be himself. Why get into such a complicated attack as demolishing two skyscrapers when Chaney simply saying "Bin Laden isn't a real threat" would have gotten the exact same results

I guarantee that it wont create a temperature of 2750 degrees and melt steel

Here is another good video

There was a power down condition in the towers on 9/8 and 9/9. There was no power for approximately 36 hours and tons of "engineers" and "technicians" going in and out of the towers. This was when the bombs were planted.

the only difference you're going to make here is that you're going to eventually run out of tin foil.

If you watch the video I posted you will see that aluminum turns silver when molten within seconds no matter what it is mixed with. If you look at the pictures I posted you will see orange molten steel on the ground loooooooong after the towers have collapsed. Anyways I am done posting. Believe what you want.

On November 22 2010 20:25 Xervean wrote: I guarantee that it wont create a temperature of 2750 degrees and melt steel

how do u magically know that through ur own advanced training in physics and engineering. You do realize that thermite is not used in building demolitions, TNT and such are which also do not melt metal but just blow it away. You do not need to melt the metal in order to cause it to collapse. So the conspiracy theorists you are proposing are super advanced to place explosives and hire thousands of engineers which enter the building on 9/9 from the 50th floor and up, yet they for some dumbfuck reason not only use thermite for no reason whatsoever but also forget to pay off the cops on the bridge....you just said earlier that "one black ops" team was as much as they needed to pay, yet now you have them paying off dozens of engineers and an entire security crew? Do you listen to your own logic when you make arguments or do you just spout off whatever comes to mind?

the powerdown was only from the 50th floor and higher, demolitions occur on ground floors so no one gives a shit there.

that video is complete shit "i believe it could withstand" o fuckin awesome analysis of a building falling down. he even admits in the video that they were not designed to take the impact of a 747 in the first place, he just thinks they could withstand it.

i wish this argument was w/ baal...he at least tends to have ideas that follow some line of sane logic...i feel like arguing with xervean is the same as arguing w/ a 9 yr old, they just keep saying random shit to try and prove a point and eventually just contradict their own logic over and over yet refuse to admit it (i really hope they are just trolling me). Anyway unless someone brings something worth while into this thread instead of just horribly unqualified statements of science and waste of time youtube videos i'm done w/ it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_the_Movie#Scholarly_responses

please delete thread. If I made a thread about how poker is all about luck and there is no skill, I hope it would be taken down... especially if it gave 90% of people the totally wrong idea.

The "engineers" were the black ops team that's why I put quotations around them... No power, no security cameras.. perfect opportunity. Nobody was ever paid off in the entire operation. They were simply supplied with all of the proper credentials and allowed to bypass security and have free reign of the building.

this is probably the 5th Zeitgeist thread in the forum which goes the same way as any of the previous ones ... even i got bored of trolling them srsly
thread could be cliff noted to this :
Religious is obv bullshit ...
USA basically hustles whole world with their Federal Reserve
and WTC collapse is either terrorist attack or pure fail by the government there would be huge amount of motives for both parts but gl unraveling that one

On November 22 2010 19:54 Xervean wrote: Show nested quote + On November 22 2010 19:48 Feiticeira wrote: here's a question the conspiracy theorists never ask themselves: if there really was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC by the US Government and there is genuine evidence proving it.. why are the only people talking about it retarded conspiracy theorists on the internet? Why aren't the Washington Post or the New York Times printing this shit on the front page? I'm pretty sure a Government conspiracy to kill thousands of American Citizens is a big story. Because people are told what to think on the news and never question anything.

that in no way answers my question: why aren't the media interested in exposing an atrocity committed by the government?

why isn't the media interested in exposing an atrocity committed by the government?
why isn''t the media interested in exposing an atrocity committed by the government?
why isn''t the media interested in exposing an atrocity committed by the government?

can you tell me this?

Also I have not contradicted myself a single time. I have stayed with the same story. You seem to think that if you were planning to blow up the world trade centers you would want to pay off security guards and cops all over the place. This is a TERRIBLE IDEA. Someone will talk before the operation takes place and ruin everything. You would want the building to be evacuated and be given free reign to do whatever you want without paying off a single person. This is exactly what was done.

By the way wasnt there some video where the architect of the WTC says that there is absolutely no way the towers would collapse that way even if 5 planes hit each building

Because the media is controlled by corporations in bed with the US Government. They are told what they can and can't say on the air. If they violate this they will be fired.

Yes spitfiree I posted that video scroll up a bit

On November 22 2010 21:12 Xervean wrote: Because the media is controlled by corporations in bed with the US Government. They are told what they can and can't say on the air. If they violate this they will be fired.

what about BBC or a non-US media source? Do they work for the US Government too?

Bush obv strategerized it all with his huge brain power.

He fooled us all - acting like an idiot throughout his presidency just so no one would expect he would be capable of pulling off the most elaborate scheme of all. NICE TRY!

/troll face

On November 22 2010 21:14 SugoGosu wrote: Show nested quote + On November 22 2010 21:12 Xervean wrote: Because the media is controlled by corporations in bed with the US Government. They are told what they can and can't say on the air. If they violate this they will be fired. what about BBC or a non-US media source? Do they work for the US Government too?

The BBC is controlled by the British government who is partnered with the US government (and many others) in bringing about the New World Order.

On November 22 2010 21:16 Svenman87 wrote: Bush obv strategerized it all with his huge brain power. He fooled us all - acting like an idiot throughout his presidency just so no one would expect he would be capable of pulling off the most elaborate scheme of all. NICE TRY! /troll face

Bush is a puppet and was likely not involved at all. On 9/11 he was reading a childrens book about a goat and did not react for a long ass time when he was informed of the attacks.

funny stuff thumbs up

Also it wasn't thermite that was used it was "THERMATE" which is a variation used in military explosives.

the real conspiracy is what I just broke...

on the zeitgeist website they want you to join the mailing list - little do the sheople know that the gov't actually runs zeitgeist and just wanted to find out who's onto them.

B00000000000000M

this movie is old as shit.

On November 22 2010 21:12 Xervean wrote: Because the media is controlled by corporations in bed with the US Government. They are told what they can and can't say on the air. If they violate this they will be fired.

I realise that you are obviously either a troll or staggeringly stupid, but if even the President of the United States isn't involved in the conspiracies, who exactly in the 'US Government' is?

According to you, neither the director of the FBI nor the President of the United States was involved in 9/11, who do you suspect was?

The director of the CIA? NSA? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Who?

Claiming there are conspiracies everywhere headed up by 'the US Government' that is beyond even the President is pretty absurd.

Xervean let it go, Feticiera and others are already convinced that there is no way their government could do that, evidence is irrelevant, they are only looking for evidence to support their flawed naive beliefs not basing their beliefs on the evidence presented, its a waste of time i mean.

WTC 5 had the biggest structural damage and BY FAR the biggest fires of all the WTCs (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7) and it never fell.




but i mean this... WTC 7 was fucking intact, it had small structural damage on the front and tiny fires and it fell at free fall speed meaning all the columns were pulverized simultaneously... and lets not forget this [b]a steel frame building never collapsed because of fire in the entire mother fucking history before WTC, fires that went for DAYs, and the WTC7 falls on its footprint because of that? you must be in some sick degree of denial to not realize you are wrong.

I will not speculate further on individual names. This is why I would like to have a full reinvestigation of 9/11. What it all comes down to is: are we looking at molten steel or molten aluminum? And as that video I posted clearly shows... Molten aluminum turns silver almost instantaneously. What we are looking at in the picture is long after the tower collapsed. If this was aluminum it would be silver and that is the end of it.

went back and re-read all the arguments from previous zeigiest threads...i need to get a life...anyhow this is pointless to argue, capaneo and baal hashed this out for dozens of pages where each argument basically resulted in the following conversation

Cap-"YOUR NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS"
Baal="YOUR A IDIOT YOUR NOT ANSWERING MY RESPONSES"

repeat for pages and pages and pages...

people on my side accept the analysis and answers given by the large majority of engineers and say any demolition of the WTC buildings is both illogical as a conspiracy and impractical to carry out

people on xerveans/baal choose to say the large majority of engineers (and answers they give) are wrong, that the gov't reports are falsified or misleading, and that the minority of engineers are correct. Further they've already become convinced that the massive conspiracy required is not only completely logical but was carried out without a hitch despite all the problems


seriously from reading the threads we might as well be arguing whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old with a bunch of evangelicals from middle america

just for fun: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf the report which describes w/ math the general view of the tower collapse

stop making cliffnotes of shit you have no clue about, i have linked documents signed by hundreds of engineers and scientists (one of the main arquitects of the god damn twin towers by the way) claiming that they believe it was a demolition, over 35% of Americans believe the government had some kind of involvement.

So stop trying to make us look like some fundamental christian retards who base their beliefs on randomness, you are the one basing your beliefs on the status quo not judging evidence, if anybody here is following a line of thinking of stubborn fundamentalist it is you regardless of who is right or wrong.

A conspiracy carried flawlessly? its not flawless when 35% of your god damn population believe you were involved in the murder of thousands of americans, it was clumsy and obvious yet the truth is so fucking hard to chew that people wont ever accept it, because that would mean that the people you vote for do not give a shit about your life and will murder you and thousands to push their agendas.


So this is not a debate of molten steel or not, you have a pic just above your post and you ignored it, you didnt even question yourself, this is a debate between people analyzing evidence and people who simply could not bear the truth and that is that the lives are americans (because foreigners its pretty clear lol) are absolutely worthless to your government.

So basically no amount of evidence and reason will pull you out of your Stockholm Syndrome, i hope one day you wake up and start questioning things.

^I have looked over evidence I just came to a completely different conclusion.

My general rule is if I don't fully understand something I will side with whatever the majority of experts in the field say. The large majority of experts that have studied the WTC attacks say that the plane damage was enough to bring down the towers. I did not ignore the pic of molten steel. Cap and I both posted links to sites which had experts explaining things like motel steel and such w/o the use of thermate but no one ever seemed to care and just said those don't prove anything.

I mean you say hundreds disagree, that's fine, i'll give you documents of hundreds/thousands of biologists who believe evolution is false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism Does this mean you'll think suddenly because thousands of biologists point out flaws in evolution that creationists have a good point? No you'll say they are retarded and laugh at them. It's the same thing here except you are in the minority. Also it makes sense to me one of the twin tower architects would say that it was a demolition, why would he admit his design was not good.

35% of the people think it's a hoax, recently that number is more like 6-28% (the same percentage of people who think the moon landings were faked) depending on orientation in the country and yes I would say that's a flawlessly carried out attack for this reason. Tell me who did the attack, not "The gov't" or some vague shit like that. If this was a huge conspiracy give me at least a couple names you believe were directly involved in it. Surely if it's so poorly carried out you can name a few. Also since no one has ever been brought to justice for the attacks I would again consider it well carried out, maybe flawlessly was slightly misleading of a word, but still very well carried out.

The tower collapse also wasn't nessecary which is something cap pointed out before. I mean my mom is a big person in the JFK conspiracy theory, that one at least makes sense from the standpoint of people needed JFK dead to do what they wanted then needed oswalt silenced so those theories at least have logical beginnings. The largest problem I have with demolition theories from a logical view is that they did not need the towers to collapse for US to go to war. All they needed for a successful war in the middle east was for an attack on large scale to occur, attacking the towers and pentagon with a plane would be simple enough and requires nothing but making sure Bush doesn't take CIA reports seriously. I have no problem and even could find logic to support a theory that if the Fed is indeed in control of the US gov't then they would make sure that Bush ignored CIA reports and allowed the attacks to occur due to not taking the threats seriously. That type of theory makes perfect sense as easy to carry about, requires a small amount of people to run successfully, and gets the job done just fine.

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.

btw could someone believing in wtc conspiracy explain why were the plains needed at all? If they were going to bomb it, why go for a massive and ridiculously difficult operation with hijacking and everything?

ok I can't contain ....palak... reread this statement please? over and over again if you have to

On November 23 2010 03:19 palak wrote: My general rule is if I don't fully understand something I will side with whatever the majority of experts in the field say.

can you not see how huge a leak this is? a very big flaw in your game sir, very, v e r y big

let me give you an example of this short sightedness that stays on topic

palak, does your mom know about WTC 7 or that three skyscrapers fell on Sept 11th 2001?

while she might, you do know the chances are that she (as with most Americans) doesn't right?

ask her this:

"This might seem like a dumb question but on 9/11, how many skyscrapers fell in New York?"

if she answers 2, send her to www.buildingwhat.org

the point is, what happens when the majority (including would be experts) is fed misinfo or left in the dark entirely?

On November 23 2010 03:35 tloapc wrote: ok I can't contain ....palak... reread this statement please? over and over again if you have to Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 03:19 palak wrote: My general rule is if I don't fully understand something I will side with whatever the majority of experts in the field say. can you not see how huge a leak this is? a very big flaw in your game sir, very, v e r y big

nope...tell me...if the vast majority of experts in a field and private investigations agree on one topic then if i do not understand the argument I will either remain neutral or side with them. For example, I do not fully understand quantum theory, does this mean I think it is false, no I side with the experts in the field who say quantum theory is correct and will use their arguments and statements if asked. This only has to do with things of a technical/scientific nature or which can be explained that way. For example I would not accept that God is real because the majority of religious experts believe in God. With historical things I am much more subjective in many cases. For example I do agree that the US gov't let happen, exagerrated etc, many of the instances leading the US into war in order to further our gov't own desires. Gulk of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, Mexican gunfire, our own biased view of the start to the french-indian war.

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.

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??

On November 23 2010 03:41 tloapc wrote: let me give you an example of this short sightedness that stays on topic palak, does your mom know about WTC 7 or that three skyscrapers fell on Sept 11th 2001? while she might, you do know the chances are that she (as with most Americans) doesn't right? ask her this: "This might seem like a dumb question but on 9/11, how many skyscrapers fell in New York?" if she answers 2, send her to www.buildingwhat.org the point is, what happens when the majority (including would be experts) is fed misinfo or left in the dark entirely?

I never follow what the majority of the American population thinks. If I i did I would think the world is 40,000 years old and that we were created by an almighty and loving gods. The average American person is not an expert and without evidence I would not consider their opinion without heavily questioning it.

Tell me what is more likely the majority of experts are fed misinfo or bad information by some all powerful conspiracy, or the minority got some math wrong or is misanalyzing the facts. If the majority of experts are fed bad information, where the hell did the minority get the good information? When dealing with experts it is almost always just an interpretation of the same facts and events. I believe that when evaluating the same incidents with the same facts the majority of experts will be the one who have come up with the right answer.

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.

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

On November 23 2010 03:50 palak wrote: I never follow what the majority of the American population thinks.

You prove this statement false by your statements in this thread

On November 23 2010 03:50 palak wrote: Tell me what is more likely the majority of experts are fed misinfo or bad information by some all powerful conspiracy, or the minority got some math wrong or is misanalyzing the facts.

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

On November 23 2010 03:50 palak wrote: When dealing with experts it is almost always just an interpretation of the same facts and events. I believe that when evaluating the same incidents with the same facts the majority of experts will be the one who have come up with the right answer.

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"

On November 23 2010 03:33 auffenpuffer wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Show nested quote + 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.

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.

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.

Yes Somalia is "anarchy" in it's most narrow analytical sense, ie. an area in which there is no monopoly of violence and it happens to be a violent area.

That is trivial: no one disagrees and it's irrelevant for a discussion on anarchism as the anarchy found there has little to do with anarchism as an ideology.

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.

Anarchism in our world (I do not understand what you mean by "perfect world" works and has worked numerous times due to human beings normally and naturally respecting each other.

There is no need to over emphasize the need for education. Poor peasants of Chiapas were well enough educated to implement libertarian communism as were those of Catalonia.



You could do yourself a favor and read some of the anarchist faq I gave a link for, so you'd know what anarchism is and have your counter arguments answered, I call it quits now.

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.

It is occurring in Chiapas right now, and occurred 70 years ago in Spain and in Ukraine.

On November 23 2010 05:32 Baal wrote: 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...

wait... You're saying Discworld isn't reality?

still waiting for theories on who specifically was responsible for the demolition, also:

what is the point in actually planting explosives in the towers if terrorists are going to fly planes into the building anyway, it doesn't make sense.

You think Bush was involved right, Baal? Do you think Obama knows now too?

true love is blind eh Feiticeira

On November 23 2010 05:55 palak wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

I was born catholic, raised by catholic parents went to catholic school, i am an atheist since i were 14 because it simply made no sense.

I was born in a society ruled by the state indoctrinated into voting bla bla bla, i am an anarchist since a couple of years ago, i think these two are clear examples that i do not rule myself by what the majority thinks.

So no, if i were born thousands of years ago, i probably wouldnt have believed that the earth was flat, i would realized how illogical that was and thought otherwise.


Yes my view on the world is that it is run by corporations in partnership with governments for their own benefit, if you dont believe this just turn around and tell me what you see.

That i know this doesnt delude me into conspiracy theories i just see the WTC7 collapsing and it is mind bogging how ridiculous that is, i honestly dont think an intelligent analitical person cannot see that, anyone who doesnt see it its deluded and an idiot, just like religious people.

Dare to think for yourself, question your beliefs, question your culture, question your values, question authority and yourself.

If every person did this in this world there would be no violence, hunger, war or hatred, a total utopia is just this close, yet so far

[/b]

On November 23 2010 10:27 Feiticeira wrote: still waiting for theories on who specifically was responsible for the demolition, also: what is the point in actually planting explosives in the towers if terrorists are going to fly planes into the building anyway, it doesn't make sense. You think Bush was involved right, Baal? Do you think Obama knows now too?

specifically? how on earth could i know?, i dont have a crystal ball as i said, i only looked at the evidence and it is extremely obvious those buildings were demolished and the reasons are obvious too.

By conclusion to who are responsible id point fingers at people who would have benefited from declaring war on afghanistan and Iraq, that would be the Federal Reserve, Oiling companies, many politicians, armament manufacturers etc.

Bush Jr. was involved? definitely while very likely not the main guy behind it (lol) this could hardly happened without him knowing and i mean just look at his dad ffs, so yes Bush's administration was obviously involved in it.

Obama? knowing? do you mean involved or just knowing/thinking it happened? Involved i really doubt it, knowing or thinking its very likely, he is a very intelligent man, he is also a politician so he knows what his kind is capable of and also has a lot of information we dont have so its likely he does knows/thinks that they were demolished, but im just speculating here.

On November 24 2010 01:50 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 05:55 palak wrote:   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. Dare to think for yourself, question your beliefs, question your culture, question your values, question authority and yourself. If every person did this in this world there would be no violence, hunger, war or hatred, a total utopia is just this close, yet so far

I wouldn't go that far, but damn, old Baal is best Baal. Current Baal has become too cynical and comfortable. Needs to start questioning things more again.

I searched for this thread because I stumbled upon a Peter Joseph interview yesterday and I figured I'd post it in a Zeitgeist thread if there was one. I never thought much of his Zeitgeist project, but it was nice reading this thread and being reminded that this site used to have some pretty decent conversations going. Particularly impressed by auffenpuffer's posts. Peter Joseph seems to have become a more serious thinker over time. I couldn't find stuff to disagree with him about in this interview. He seems to have more or less the same outlook and broad interests as me, even including some talk on cybernetics in one part. He might just not be aware of the more recent developments in complexity theory.

Edit: all parts in one here:




--------------------

On May 27 2018 03:27 Loco wrote: I wouldn't go that far, but damn, old Baal is best Baal. Current Baal has become too cynical and comfortable. Needs to start questioning things more again. I searched for this thread because I stumbled upon a Peter Joseph interview yesterday and I figured I'd post it in a Zeitgeist thread if there was one. I never thought much of his Zeitgeist project, but it was nice reading this thread and being reminded that this site used to have some pretty decent conversations going. Particularly impressed by auffenpuffer's posts. Peter Joseph seems to have become a more serious thinker over time. I couldn't find stuff to disagree with him about in this interview. He seems to have more or less the same outlook and broad interests as me, even including some talk on cybernetics in one part. He might just not be aware of the more recent developments in complexity theory.

perhaps my friend, cynical and comfortable quite describe me lol, maybe its happiness, suffering leads to introspection.

I probalby give the feel of certainty in my beliefs but I certainly aren't I doubt myself more than ever, im not even sure about capitalism being better than socialism, you might be right.

Old Loco is best Loco, and I'll return the favor of honest old-time-sake critique, you have grown conceited

On November 24 2010 01:50 Baalim wrote: So no, if i were born thousands of years ago, i probably wouldnt have believed that the earth was flat, i would realized how illogical that was and thought otherwise.

umm didn't read everything but old Baal def not best Baal
current Baal ftw

Some naivety makes a person charming or at least entertaining. Absolute cynicism ruins them.

people usually shift from idealistic to pragmatic as they get older. Then they accuse each other of naivety and cynicism accordingly

Sure, but it's a mistake to think that being open to exploring possibilities means that you are idealistic (unrealistic) and incapable of being pragmatic. It's also a mistake to assume that cynicism is related to maturity and a warranted skepticism. It's a widely held belief, which should tell us that it's a comforting illusion. It's certainly not an outlook that's acquired through effort, it's more of side-effect of being atomized within a culture of sameness. You have to be in a bubble where you and everyone else you know are always self-interested in order to project it onto the rest of world and close yourself off to actual empirical data to the contrary as a result.

Something I've learned in recent years is that it isn't utopian ideals that are dangerous, it's dogmatism. A person--and by extension a civilization-- that doesn't seek highly desirable results for itself is one that can only be degenerative. It's indispensable for evolution. Dogma has always existed to maintain one's prerogatives and dominance. Both on the right and the left, it is the true enemy.


"If you do not hope, you will not win that which is not hoped for, since it is unattainable and inaccessible."
— Heraclitus

I don't think my values has changed in any significant manner. Have become significantly less revolutionary and more about incremental improvement (which I attribute to a greater understanding of how revolutions have a tendency to backfire), but the society I idealize is pretty much the same as a 34 year old as it was when I was 20.

I don't accept that I have become less idealistic, perhaps slightly less naive, but I also try to cling on to some degree of naivety - mostly because I vastly prefer that over cynicism in other people, 'be the change you want to make in other people' and all that.

You've always been one of the few people who actually listen to arguments instead of just trying to impose your own like loco and I do (regardless if we say we dont )

You're implying that I just dismiss ideas I don't like, which I don't do. I don't even dismiss what is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction a lot of the time, I often respond to it even though it doesn't deserve to be responded to. Especially when it comes down to political economy, a lot of it is just knee jerk, memes and tropes that you can find in most YouTube comment sections being repeated over and over. People aren't really thinking about the things they say on this subject most of the time, probably because they don't do any serious reading. They are just repeating things they've heard or superficially read into. "Socialism is just stealing money", "socialism has always failed, you have to be pretty arrogant to think YOU could do it better," "Marxism has killed 100 million people" etc. aren't arguments, they're a waste of time. I'm sorry if you don't realize the difference. I always listen carefully if I can learn something, but you don't learn from knee jerk reactions and tropes.

I've read a lot on human cognition and communication. I understand the importance of not negating another person, especially since I've read Humberto Maturana's "Tree of Life" last year, that point was really driven home for me. I think you do a fair amount of negating in a discussion. I'm not the one constantly saying "this is one of the most stupid things you've ever said," "this is retarded," etc. Yes, I'm not a saint, I can get frustrated like everyone else. But in discussions that are centered around empirical matters, it's impossible for the discussion to be "egalitarian" if there is a discrepancy in two people's evidence-gathering capabilities. The result has to come out as one person being better informed and "imposing" by necessity, as far as I can tell.

dude I was paying a compliment to Drone, relax.

You weren't just paying him a compliment though. And you weren't even just saying that he is high in trait agreeableness while you and I are low in it, which I would have simply agreed with you with. But being opinionated and forceful is one thing, refusing to listen to others is another entirely. I don't accept that criticism as valid. I have plenty of personality flaws but this is not one, so speak for yourself if you think it applies to you. I also slightly misread your post so I went into a bigger rant as a result... Most of our disagreements have centered around political economy so I thought I'd point out part of why it is that I might not respond with the utmost respect and patience on this topic.

Zeitgeist mockumentary

http://skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/

Apart from a few points where his exuberance got the better of him I really enjoyed that interview with Peter Joseph - he is an articulate speaker. Loco do you have further information on the advances in complexity and system theory you mention? An interesting topic.

My main sources have been the French cyberneticians who formed the "group of ten". The main figure who has synthesized their ideas and contributed significant advances is Edgar Morin, but his main work hasn't been translated into English yet (only the first tome has been). His main and most accessible works in English are "Seven Complex Lessons in Education" and "On Complexity". There's Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela's work, as well as Terrence Deacon's. These last two are very difficult works and shouldn't be the first works you read if you are largely unfamiliar with systems theory/cybernetics/epistemological constructivism.

This is a new video that came out today, where Peter introduces his version of cybernetics and its implications for a viable economic system. It's pretty limited in scope but quite accessible. I also enjoyed the woman speaker's talk on storytelling and her co-op sharing project is very cool.

Cool stuff.

I think a key is formulating a way to number 1 have the facts down about the businesses not being "profitable" if one considers their effects on the environment and mental health and then more importantly like the woman said be able to share stories about it. Her work really is the future. As well as what Peter was discussing.

I remember the first time I was in Amsterdam it blew my mind. Of course, I was smoking A LOT of really good weed but specifically in regards to recycling and public transportation the city told a really powerful story. I still carry that story with me. Now, it's a little easier to implement that stuff in Amsterdam than it is in craggy, hilly, rubbly Pittsburgh, PA but they actually are implementing a lot of that stuff to a point where they can and the community is better off for it. Imagine systems theory being taught in advanced high school classes? Or, at least university courses.

Exciting stuff.

It should be taught earlier than that, it comes naturally to 1st grade students before they get indoctrinated by the compartmentalization process that fuels capitalism. See this vid at around 38:00.

That's pretty amazing. Young kids have learning superpowers. System theory is such a valuable education at that age. I mean it's super important at any age but to learn it in the first year of elementary school along with the golden rule, how to read, basic math, etc. is a game changer.

sickening

That Libya situation is more complex than they are making it out to be but still her actions and her reactions are gross. The Clintons are gross. They're all gross. All the presidents and the congressman for the last 25-30 years (and more). It's like the world is ruled by psychopaths but if you murder them you're the psychopath and if another psychopath murders them then it's likely just as ugly. There is a lot that we need but part of it is definitely finding a Bernie 2.0 which may be no small feat. The Democratic Party basically used Bernie to get people registered and then fucked him in the ass. The data is not always accurate but Bernie had a larger chance of beating Trump and I think he would have. Bernie might have actually had a positive effect on the USA and the earth and its citizens.

Congress would have allowed Bernie to implement zero of his ideas

Even more sickening:

harvard academic line up to praise paul kagame, who is probably the biggest mass murderer alive today. https://www.paulstreet.org/kagame-goes-to-harvard/
the level's of indoctrination at ivy league universities are impressive, and these people who praise mass murderers seem like very nice people as well-just very well mannered and polite apologists for mass murder.

read the politics of genocide if you want a full study of the indoctrination which focuses on attitudes towards mass murder.

nothing will beat Obama's Nobel

On June 08 2018 03:53 Baalim wrote: nothing will beat Obama's Nobel

kissingers nobel.