Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Clarifying the Facts About Conspiracists

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems as though no one here understands the nature of conspiracy theory. As stated by Double_R:

"That is why you will almost never hear conspiracy theorists talk about what they believe actually did happen. Richard Gage is famous for his answer to any question regarding this: "Well that's why we need a new investigation that will reveal the answer."

But you did get it right; all they claim is ignorance."


That is blatantly false. They do not claim ignorance, they claim KNOWLEDGE.

Conspiracy theorists know about the Bilderberg Group, they know about the leaked government documents, they know about which politician is part of which secret society, they know which banks are owned by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, they knew that Zbigniew Brzezinski was Obama's political adviser before anyone else, they know about Cheney's Haliburton schemes, they know about Bohemian Grove and who attends it, they know that the U.S. they know that the two-party system is fraud, they know that the government funded Al Queda, they know that the Rothschilds funded both sides in World War II, they knew about Operation Northwoods, MK ULTRA, they know about Obama's faked backgrounds, they know which laws are unConstitutional.

And for you to claim that all we claim is ignorance? That is beyond absurd, blatantly false, and an outright lie.

Even in the instance of 9/11 where we can't claim to know EXACTLY what happened, conspiracists have WAY more knowledge about the specifics of 9/11 than anyone especially the average person.

That's the thing. Conspiracists don't concoct anything, they simply research and report back to you and have information that isn't common and isn't spoonfed to you by the mainstream media or by the indoctrination facilities we call schools. The schools won't tell you that the Queen of England own's 1/6th of all the land on Earth, they won't tell you about the Occult symbols in Washington D.C. and the Freemasons involvement in U.S. History. Yet, on record, there's documents of George Washington's written letters expressing concerns about the the Illuminati spreading to the U.S.

He goes on to ask:

"So my question to anyone who thinks this way is: what is the point? Why reject every single piece of evidence and logic that one could use to come to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy, even when it is the same logic used in everything else in life?"

Conspiracists don't reject evidence. You fail. Conspiracists question what you blindly accept.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:16:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The issue is that conspirators both reject evidence and believe just about anything they are told. When a conspiracy theorist asks 100 questions for why something happened in an event, and someone gives them 100 answers, conspiracy theorists dont see it as 100 explanations, they see it as an excuse to ask 100 more questions. "Well if thats the truth then why_________?" is how every conspiracy theorist has ever responded to an explanation given to one of their questions, and this goes on and on and on until eventually the conspiracy theorist is making absurd claims about why each and every little detail happened exactly the way it did and why it didnt happen someway else.

The other issue is that conspiracy theorists will use just about any evidence they can find if it adds to their platform of why something was a conspiracy. Just about every 9/11 conspiracy theorist who thinks that the towers collapsing was an inside job most likely will use discrepancies from details about the attack on the Pentagon and flight 93 to their advantage of why they believe it is a conspiracy. "Well if thats true then why did this thing happen over at this place?" is usually the remark you get when a person answers a conspiracy theorists question but cannot find an acceptable counter to the claim within the event being discussed.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:27:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conspiracists don't reject evidence.

Right.... do you still think the arms treaty bans private ownership of guns, even though myself and others pointed out the wording that specifically protects private ownership of guns?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:31:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:27:21 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conspiracists don't reject evidence.

Right.... do you still think the arms treaty bans private ownership of guns, even though myself and others pointed out the wording that specifically protects private ownership of guns?

^^^
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:37:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:27:21 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conspiracists don't reject evidence.

Right.... do you still think the arms treaty bans private ownership of guns, even though myself and others pointed out the wording that specifically protects private ownership of guns?

I posted the refutation to that several times already, but here it is again. Infowars addressed that very issue.

"The first "principle" outlined in the preamble reads: "1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense." While the language of the treaty appears to recognize the legal right to keep such arms, the text actually recognizes the "inherent right of States" to "individual and collective" self-defense.

This is NOT the same as individual persons" inherent right to keep and bear arms as recognized and enumerated in the United States" Bill of Rights. Instead, it puts the collectivist unit known as the State above the individual, in complete defiance of the system set-up in the United States. Individual defense for a State, for instance, refers to what is known on the international scene as "unilateral war," while collective defense is recognize in such actions as that of NATO or other allied bodies. The States" right to maintain internal order has also been recognized by the UN, but all other purposes for arms ownership are seen as illegitimate.

It specifically recognizes [only] the "lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law." There"s been a great deal of rhetoric from gun grabbers over the years attempting to emphasize gun ownership for legitimate sporting uses, but the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended, and that is the historical legacy Americans cherish."
-- http://www.infowars.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:42:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:37:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I posted the refutation to that several times already, but here it is again. Infowars addressed that very issue.

Not really, but let's try it again.

"The first "principle" outlined in the preamble reads: "1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense." While the language of the treaty appears to recognize the legal right to keep such arms, the text actually recognizes the "inherent right of States" to "individual and collective" self-defense.

This is NOT the same as individual persons" inherent right to keep and bear arms as recognized and enumerated in the United States" Bill of Rights. Instead, it puts the collectivist unit known as the State above the individual, in complete defiance of the system set-up in the United States. Individual defense for a State, for instance, refers to what is known on the international scene as "unilateral war," while collective defense is recognize in such actions as that of NATO or other allied bodies. The States" right to maintain internal order has also been recognized by the UN, but all other purposes for arms ownership are seen as illegitimate.

1 - Who said that section of the treaty applies to individuals?
2 - How does it put the state ahead of the individual? The two are not mutually exclusive. You can both recognize a country's right to defend itself, and an individual's right to defend itself.

It specifically recognizes [only] the "lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law." There"s been a great deal of rhetoric from gun grabbers over the years attempting to emphasize gun ownership for legitimate sporting uses, but the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended, and that is the historical legacy Americans cherish."

Only? Lol. It recognizes 'only' the lawful private ownership and use of arms, in accordance with ownership and use protected by law. In other words, it recognizes any already legal private ownership and use of guns.

It also would recognize any change in what is considered 'lawful' private ownership and use of arms. If the US suddenly allowed full-auto rifles with no regulation, it would recognize that. All it says is it recognizes legal uses. How is that restrictive?

Inter alia means 'among other things', so that is not an exclusive list of uses.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:44:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Once again Geo:

14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms

I'll simplify that for you:

Recognizing lawful private ownership and use of guns.

How is that banning guns? It is lawful for me to own a gun in my state. The treaty recognizes that.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:47:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Honestly Geo, it's practically impossible to look at the text of the treaty and get what you get out of it. Stop looking at what Alex Jones is saying about it, and read just the treaty.

The entire purpose of the treaty is to prevent the illegal international transfer of arms into the hands of terrorists, or those who would use them to commit crimes against humanity.

The treaty specifically recognizes the right of each country to regulate it's own domestic transfers and transactions.

The treaty specifically recognizes the right of each country to have it's own laws and constitution as to the legality of private ownership and use.

The treaty specifically recognizes the right of individuals, where law permits, to own and use guns.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:49:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conspiracists question what you blindly accept.

You, or conspiracists rather, blindly assume naysayers blindly accept things. Why do conspiracists get the high ground of rationale thought and seeing through the deceptions, yet those who "don't get it" are simply sheep?

I blindly accept facts, especially on matters I know nothing about as I have no reason not to believe them. However, once two facts disagree, I analyze them because now I have something that needs to be reconciled. But, if I come down on the wrong side of the conspiracist, I blindly accepted the facts that I decided were more accurate. Perhaps I am wrong, but I surely did not merely accept what I believe.

To disregard my thought processes and knowledge with a blanket statement is quite insulting, actually.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 1:02:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:49:18 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
You, or conspiracists rather, blindly assume naysayers blindly accept things. Why do conspiracists get the high ground of rationale thought and seeing through the deceptions, yet those who "don't get it" are simply sheep?

I blindly accept facts, especially on matters I know nothing about as I have no reason not to believe them. However, once two facts disagree, I analyze them because now I have something that needs to be reconciled. But, if I come down on the wrong side of the conspiracist, I blindly accepted the facts that I decided were more accurate. Perhaps I am wrong, but I surely did not merely accept what I believe.

To disregard my thought processes and knowledge with a blanket statement is quite insulting, actually.

Did a single skeptic or so called rationalist ever once doubt the official story? I'm pretty sure they accepted the official story the government told them and then dismissed the 9/11 truthers as fringe lunatics. Did a single skeptic ever question the motives of the Bilderberg? Did a single skeptic ever question the legality of Bohemian Grove activities? No, I'm pretty sure the skeptic denied that these blatant activities even existed or threw it under the rug.

Of course general statements will always be not true for some people who are exceptions to the rule. But if a person didn't blindly accept what the government told them, they would hold the same view of the conspiracist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 1:08:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought I already pointed out that America would NEVER ban the use of guns. See this is what you conspiracy theory don't understand. You don't truly know what drives the world. It is simple. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You get that? You don't need to take guns away from people to enslave them. That's counter-productive. You need people convinced the need to buy more guns. That's $$$. You need to convince them to buy the new Ipad. That's $$$ Want that new car? Come fill out these loan papers! $$$ Want a credit card with low-interest rates? Great! Now I own your grandkids!

You do not run the world with brute strength. Great men have tried and all have failed. You run the world by giving people exactly what they want while they ignore what they need.
#BlackLivesMatter
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 1:13:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 1:08:30 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
I thought I already pointed out that America would NEVER ban the use of guns. See this is what you conspiracy theory don't understand. You don't truly know what drives the world. It is simple. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You get that? You don't need to take guns away from people to enslave them. That's counter-productive. You need people convinced the need to buy more guns. That's $$$. You need to convince them to buy the new Ipad. That's $$$ Want that new car? Come fill out these loan papers! $$$ Want a credit card with low-interest rates? Great! Now I own your grandkids!

You do not run the world with brute strength. Great men have tried and all have failed. You run the world by giving people exactly what they want while they ignore what they need.

The global elites are beyond the chase for money. They control money and its value.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
-- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 1:16:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 1:13:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 1:08:30 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
I thought I already pointed out that America would NEVER ban the use of guns. See this is what you conspiracy theory don't understand. You don't truly know what drives the world. It is simple. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You get that? You don't need to take guns away from people to enslave them. That's counter-productive. You need people convinced the need to buy more guns. That's $$$. You need to convince them to buy the new Ipad. That's $$$ Want that new car? Come fill out these loan papers! $$$ Want a credit card with low-interest rates? Great! Now I own your grandkids!

You do not run the world with brute strength. Great men have tried and all have failed. You run the world by giving people exactly what they want while they ignore what they need.

The global elites are beyond the chase for money. They control money and its value.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
-- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...)

Exactly. They won already. It's like a game of chess. They have you in checkmate but you're wondering why he has blue socks on.
#BlackLivesMatter
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 1:25:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Geo, why can't you have a logical discussion about facts? I would respect you infinitely more if you would address the issue completely, and admit that the arms treaty specifically recognizes all legal ownership and use of guns.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:12:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
And for you to claim that all we claim is ignorance? That is beyond absurd, blatantly false, and an outright lie.

Even in the instance of 9/11 where we can't claim to know EXACTLY what happened, conspiracists have WAY more knowledge about the specifics of 9/11 than anyone especially the average person.

You are correct that the average conspiracy theorist has WAY more knowledge of what happened that day then the average person. There are two issues with this however. First is the selective nature of what the average conspiracy theorist knows. How many "truthers" for example who relentlessly question the collapse of WTC7 has ever actually read the NIST report which explains it?

The second issue more importantly (and the reason why I say they claim ignorance) is the fact that all the theorists do is draw dots, but refuse to connect them. Then they claim that because their dots do not connect, that gives reason for a new investigation. This is nothing more then a claim of ignorance.

How did WTC7 achieve free fall speed? Why did people report hearing explosions? How did a plane fit into that "tiny" little hole in the pentagon? Truthers never attempt to come up with a theory that connects these dots because even they know there is no reasonable way to do it. So they just stick to their nonsense claim that it was some generic form of government who did it somehow, someway, for some reason. Then wonder why no one can prove them wrong. They reject every real world explanation for all of these questions then wonder why their questions are still unanswered. There is no greater form of ignorance then that.

Conspiracists don't reject evidence. You fail. Conspiracists question what you blindly accept.

I would respond but Bush hasn't gotten back to me yet. When he does I'll have a good one for you.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:24:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems as though no one here understands the nature of conspiracy theory. As stated by Double_R:

"That is why you will almost never hear conspiracy theorists talk about what they believe actually did happen. Richard Gage is famous for his answer to any question regarding this: "Well that's why we need a new investigation that will reveal the answer."

But you did get it right; all they claim is ignorance."


That is blatantly false. They do not claim ignorance, they claim KNOWLEDGE.

Conspiracy theorists know about the Bilderberg Group, they know about the leaked government documents, they know about which politician is part of which secret society, they know which banks are owned by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, they knew that Zbigniew Brzezinski was Obama's political adviser before anyone else, they know about Cheney's Haliburton schemes, they know about Bohemian Grove and who attends it, they know that the U.S. they know that the two-party system is fraud, they know that the government funded Al Queda, they know that the Rothschilds funded both sides in World War II, they knew about Operation Northwoods, MK ULTRA, they know about Obama's faked backgrounds, they know which laws are unConstitutional.

And for you to claim that all we claim is ignorance? That is beyond absurd, blatantly false, and an outright lie.

Even in the instance of 9/11 where we can't claim to know EXACTLY what happened, conspiracists have WAY more knowledge about the specifics of 9/11 than anyone especially the average person.

That's the thing. Conspiracists don't concoct anything, they simply research and report back to you and have information that isn't common and isn't spoonfed to you by the mainstream media or by the indoctrination facilities we call schools. The schools won't tell you that the Queen of England own's 1/6th of all the land on Earth, they won't tell you about the Occult symbols in Washington D.C. and the Freemasons involvement in U.S. History. Yet, on record, there's documents of George Washington's written letters expressing concerns about the the Illuminati spreading to the U.S.

He goes on to ask:

"So my question to anyone who thinks this way is: what is the point? Why reject every single piece of evidence and logic that one could use to come to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy, even when it is the same logic used in everything else in life?"

Conspiracists don't reject evidence. You fail. Conspiracists question what you blindly accept.

Tell it again!

Don't lose the zeal!!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:59:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they go out of their way to find imaginary conspiracies, in order to create an explanation that they are more willing to accept.

"What a group of Islamic extremist blew themselves up, in order to bring down the world trade center, and now we are at war? I think the government just wanted to go to war, the government must have planted explosives." ~ typical truther
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:01:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 5:59:15 PM, DanT wrote:
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they go out of their way to find imaginary conspiracies, in order to create an explanation that they are more willing to accept.

"What a group of Islamic extremist blew themselves up, in order to bring down the world trade center, and now we are at war? I think the government just wanted to go to war, the government must have planted explosives." ~ typical truther

They don't need to have an alternate explanation, they can simply reject the first story. How could inexperienced Arabs navigate and hijack a U.S airliner halfway around the world?

A typical american sheep is stumped by this question.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:33:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:01:06 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 5:59:15 PM, DanT wrote:
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they go out of their way to find imaginary conspiracies, in order to create an explanation that they are more willing to accept.

"What a group of Islamic extremist blew themselves up, in order to bring down the world trade center, and now we are at war? I think the government just wanted to go to war, the government must have planted explosives." ~ typical truther

They don't need to have an alternate explanation, they can simply reject the first story. How could inexperienced Arabs navigate and hijack a U.S airliner halfway around the world?

A typical american sheep is stumped by this question.

they didn't.

Flight 11 took off from MA, and crashed in NY
Flight 175 took off from MA, and crashed in NY
Flight 77 took off from VA, and crashed in VA
Flight 93 took off from NJ, and crashed in PA
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:41:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:33:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:01:06 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 5:59:15 PM, DanT wrote:
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they go out of their way to find imaginary conspiracies, in order to create an explanation that they are more willing to accept.

"What a group of Islamic extremist blew themselves up, in order to bring down the world trade center, and now we are at war? I think the government just wanted to go to war, the government must have planted explosives." ~ typical truther

They don't need to have an alternate explanation, they can simply reject the first story. How could inexperienced Arabs navigate and hijack a U.S airliner halfway around the world?

A typical american sheep is stumped by this question.

they didn't.

Flight 11 took off from MA, and crashed in NY
Flight 175 took off from MA, and crashed in NY
Flight 77 took off from VA, and crashed in VA
Flight 93 took off from NJ, and crashed in PA
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:08:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:01:06 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
They don't need to have an alternate explanation, they can simply reject the first story. How could inexperienced Arabs navigate and hijack a U.S airliner halfway around the world?

Have you ever read the 9/11 commission report?
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:10:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ithink this link roll's right along into the two videos I posted in thereligious forum. The thread is called, Evil & the truth. Let me remind you they are 2 hours long a piece.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:01:06 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 5:59:15 PM, DanT wrote:
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they go out of their way to find imaginary conspiracies, in order to create an explanation that they are more willing to accept.

"What a group of Islamic extremist blew themselves up, in order to bring down the world trade center, and now we are at war? I think the government just wanted to go to war, the government must have planted explosives." ~ typical truther

They don't need to have an alternate explanation, they can simply reject the first story. How could inexperienced Arabs navigate and hijack a U.S airliner halfway around the world?

A typical american sheep is stumped by this question.

Funny, "inexperienced Arabs" were trained in jihadist camps, taught how to fly, and were given the same sort of training the terrorists since the 80s have been using to take over planes.

I have yet to meet a Truther with a solid grasp of world history. The most they can understand is "Well, at time x America supported dude y, so if dude y does something twenty years later, it must be America who wanted him to do! HUZZAH!"
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 11:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conspiracists question what you blindly accept.

You know Geo, in reading this thread I found your exchange with JaxsonRaine very interesting. You claimed that the Arms Treaty bans private ownership of guns. When asked to support that claim you posted a copy and paste response from Alex Jones. Jaxson then showed the wording directly from the treaty itself and made the following comment I found amusing:

"Honestly Geo, it's practically impossible to look at the text of the treaty and get what you get out of it. Stop looking at what Alex Jones is saying about it, and read just the treaty."

The reason I found this comment amusing is because it made me think the same thing. Did you actually read the treaty or are you just listening to what Alex Jones says? Then I thought about our exchange in the last thread where you made the following claim (copy and pasted from Alex Jones of course):

"Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes in written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order"not"to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon."

I then showed why your comment was false by explaining what he was actually talking about, you never responded. So in two threads you made two claims shown to be factually false. And what's funny about them is that in both cases your arguments were purely copied and pasted from sites by Alex Jones, while the counter claims came from the actual source. So who here is blindly accepting what they are told?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 1:25:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 11:10:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conspiracists question what you blindly accept.

You know Geo, in reading this thread I found your exchange with JaxsonRaine very interesting. You claimed that the Arms Treaty bans private ownership of guns. When asked to support that claim you posted a copy and paste response from Alex Jones. Jaxson then showed the wording directly from the treaty itself and made the following comment I found amusing:

"Honestly Geo, it's practically impossible to look at the text of the treaty and get what you get out of it. Stop looking at what Alex Jones is saying about it, and read just the treaty."

The reason I found this comment amusing is because it made me think the same thing. Did you actually read the treaty or are you just listening to what Alex Jones says? Then I thought about our exchange in the last thread where you made the following claim (copy and pasted from Alex Jones of course):

"Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes in written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order"not"to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon."

I then showed why your comment was false by explaining what he was actually talking about, you never responded. So in two threads you made two claims shown to be factually false. And what's funny about them is that in both cases your arguments were purely copied and pasted from sites by Alex Jones, while the counter claims came from the actual source. So who here is blindly accepting what they are told?

You have no idea what you're talking about. I stated this already, Alex Jones quoted THE ENTIRE U.N. ARMS TREATY and bolded the parts of concern. Yes, I read the treaty and yes I read the bolded parts that he was referencing as well as his analysis. You don't fvckin listen do you.

You think that JaxxonRaine refuted me by showing me an actual excerpt from the text as if I hadn't seen it before, I didn't respond, and you conclude that you won. No, that quote was old news to me. I already saw it, he didn't refute sh!t.

Neither of you have brought any so called "counter-evidence" that I haven't seen already.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 1:31:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 1:25:56 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 11:10:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:04:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conspiracists question what you blindly accept.

You know Geo, in reading this thread I found your exchange with JaxsonRaine very interesting. You claimed that the Arms Treaty bans private ownership of guns. When asked to support that claim you posted a copy and paste response from Alex Jones. Jaxson then showed the wording directly from the treaty itself and made the following comment I found amusing:

"Honestly Geo, it's practically impossible to look at the text of the treaty and get what you get out of it. Stop looking at what Alex Jones is saying about it, and read just the treaty."

The reason I found this comment amusing is because it made me think the same thing. Did you actually read the treaty or are you just listening to what Alex Jones says? Then I thought about our exchange in the last thread where you made the following claim (copy and pasted from Alex Jones of course):

"Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes in written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order"not"to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon."

I then showed why your comment was false by explaining what he was actually talking about, you never responded. So in two threads you made two claims shown to be factually false. And what's funny about them is that in both cases your arguments were purely copied and pasted from sites by Alex Jones, while the counter claims came from the actual source. So who here is blindly accepting what they are told?

You have no idea what you're talking about. I stated this already, Alex Jones quoted THE ENTIRE U.N. ARMS TREATY and bolded the parts of concern. Yes, I read the treaty and yes I read the bolded parts that he was referencing as well as his analysis. You don't fvckin listen do you.

You think that JaxxonRaine refuted me by showing me an actual excerpt from the text as if I hadn't seen it before, I didn't respond, and you conclude that you won. No, that quote was old news to me. I already saw it, he didn't refute sh!t.

Neither of you have brought any so called "counter-evidence" that I haven't seen already.

Then why won't you address why my points are invalid?

You won't address the fact that the treaty explicity recognizes the rights of citizens to own and use guns, in accordance with the laws of their country.

You won't address the fact that the treaty only applies to international transfers of arms, not ownership.

http://www.debate.org...

Come on. Make some arguments of your own, instead of just quoting Alex Jones(or whoever was writing/ghost-writing that article).
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 1:32:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Geo, take the debate. Don't be a loser like Ren and run away saying 'You're wrong but I can't be bothered to prove it, it's so obvious, herp derp derp'.

Really, don't be a Ren...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 1:34:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 1:32:30 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Geo, take the debate. Don't be a loser like Ren and run away saying 'You're wrong but I can't be bothered to prove it, it's so obvious, herp derp derp'.

Really, don't be a Ren...

I have multiple debates defending multiple conspiracies.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 1:36:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 1:34:42 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/13/2012 1:32:30 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Geo, take the debate. Don't be a loser like Ren and run away saying 'You're wrong but I can't be bothered to prove it, it's so obvious, herp derp derp'.

Really, don't be a Ren...

I have multiple debates defending multiple conspiracies.

So? Take the debate. You can just copy/paste Alex Jones again if you want.

Or... here's an idea...

You could actually address the points I have made.

You know, explain how the treaty, which says that private citizens can own and use guns where it is lawful to do so, is actually banning guns.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13