Conspiracy Vs Realist

Abookamongstthemany · June 2007

jeffbr wrote:

This was the funniest piece in the entire thread so far, so kudos.

You are correct. I am biased. So are you. So is the original poster. We all bring our biases to the table. You demonstrated yours clearly in this thread. The original poster exaggerated and embellished and took things out of context to create an image and make a point. I mirrored his post, doing the same thing from a different perspective. But rather than challenging the original poster's premises, you give him a big thumbs up, and then challenged my post. Do you see any inconsistency there? Do you at least acknowledge that your bias was demonstrated? If I have no place assigning judgment to questions, then neither do you. In fact, we should all withhold all judgment (positive or negative) from one another's posts by your logic, since we are all biased. Wow, that would make for a boring board.

Of course I am biased. I draw the line at ridiculing...that's all. If you felt you were being ridiculed you have every right to object as well.

Abookamongstthemany · June 2007

chopitdown wrote:

Good questions are needed to find the truth and find answers. If the answers you receive don't fit your preconceived notions it doesn't make the answer wrong, it means your preconceived notion may be wrong. But we can't say that b/c someone might get their feelings hurt.

It's not about getting anyone's feeling hurt. It's about tolerance of other opinions and ideas when given the same set of facts. It gets really old how some of you choose to mock people for seeing things differently than you do. You can disagree without the complete lack of respect. Your trust is just as preconceived as our doubt.

soulsinging · June 2007

Specifics wrote:

no jeffrey, i beg to differ. mine is an original idea i had, based on arguments i read all the time on this board, from people who like to throw out words like conspiracy and realist.

yours is not funny, not original, and attempts to whitewash things with non-sensical bullshit, therefore making no point other than a little insight into your internal workings.

hehehehe... original? the day you provide an original thought on here is the day ill actually leave permanently. and i say that to give you some incentive.

Specifics · June 2007

soulsinging wrote:

hehehehe... original? the day you provide an original thought on here is the day ill actually leave permanently. and i say that to give you some incentive.

Oh no come on don't leave, i think this may be the first time we've even communicated, and you already seem like the sort of jumped up little prick i like to fuck with. stick around dude

Edit: hehehehehe

Specifics · June 2007

jeffbr wrote:

In fact, wasn't the "mexican drug lords" phrase leveled at one you'd place in the "realist" camp by someone not in that camp?

Oh no Jeffrey, quite the opposite. That exact argument was posted by a VERY close friend of yours who believes himself to be the ultimate realist, as a decent reason for having an all powerful military.

chopitdown wrote:

No, I don't think the cap fits at all. I think your assertations about the conspiracy people are what most people think. I think your reasons re: the realists are purposefully baiting for a response. a realist would most likely say

america needs a strong military to protect itself
understanding and tolerance do not have to equal accpetance and endorsement of an act.
Good questions are needed to find the truth and find answers. If the answers you receive don't fit your preconceived notions it doesn't make the answer wrong, it means your preconceived notion may be wrong. But we can't say that b/c someone might get their feelings hurt.

My bad, is that what you "realists" are scared to say in case you hurt some feelings?
I never picked that up thru the nose in the air, my Dad's bigger than your Dad, simplistic rhetoric that gets given out instead of decent well thought out answers.
Lets debate in future without fear of hurting each others feelings then, deal??

chopitdown · June 2007

Specifics wrote:

Oh no Jeffrey, quite the opposite. That exact argument was posted by a VERY close friend of yours who believes himself to be the ultimate realist, as a decent reason for having an all powerful military.

My bad, is that what you "realists" are scared to say in case you hurt some feelings?
I never picked that up thru the nose in the air, my Dad's bigger than your Dad, simplistic rhetoric that gets given out instead of decent well thought out answers.
Lets debate in future without fear of hurting each others feelings then, deal??

first of all I never called myself a realist; i merely provided my opinion of what most likely represents a realist better than your oh so enlightened response. second I'd love to hear your assumption of what i meant when i said we should have a strong military for protection; please enlighten me as to what I meant. As for the "very close friend" part; it's good to see that when you are challenged you resort to implications of something...very original as well.

chopitdown · June 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It's not about getting anyone's feeling hurt. It's about tolerance of other opinions and ideas when given the same set of facts. It gets really old how some of you choose to mock people for seeing things differently than you do. You can disagree without the complete lack of respect. Your trust is just as preconceived as our doubt.

everyone here mocks people for seeing things differently. Ever been to the religious threads? I usually do disagree w/o complete lack of respect. And just out of curiosity, of what trust are you speaking? The govt? I don't think the gov't is very trustworthy, but I also don't think their withholding of information is necessarily an indictment of their guilt or involvement in something. To me, trust is they are saying everything they know and there is no way they would do anything to harm or mislead the public, which is a terrible position to have.

Specifics · June 2007

chopitdown wrote:

first of all I never called myself a realist; i merely provided my opinion of what most likely represents a realist better than your oh so enlightened response. second I'd love to hear your assumption of what i meant when i said we should have a strong military for protection; please enlighten me as to what I meant. As for the "very close friend" part; it's good to see that when you are challenged you resort to implications of something...very original as well.

You're very defensive for someone who doesn't think of themself in that way!
Well i certainly never said that the people calling themselves "Realists" (you it seems) are actually realists, far from it. Why and where did i assume what you feel about the military? you tell me in your "oh so enlightened response".

I think you're suggesting that i was accusing jeff of being Gay, that came from your mind too, wonderful thing huh words, like a view into a person.

chopitdown · June 2007

Specifics wrote:

You're very defensive for someone who doesn't think of themself in that way!
Well i certainly never said that the people calling themselves "Realists" (you it seems) are actually realists, far from it. Why and where did i assume what you feel about the military? you tell me in your "oh so enlightened response".

I think you're suggesting that i was accusing jeff of being Gay, that came from your mind too, wonderful thing huh words, like a view into a person.

not worth it.

Abookamongstthemany · June 2007

chopitdown wrote:

everyone here mocks people for seeing things differently. Ever been to the religious threads? I usually do disagree w/o complete lack of respect. And just out of curiosity, of what trust are you speaking? The govt? I don't think the gov't is very trustworthy, but I also don't think their withholding of information is necessarily an indictment of their guilt or involvement in something. To me, trust is they are saying everything they know and there is no way they would do anything to harm or mislead the public, which is a terrible position to have.

I choose not to fall back on the old 'everyone else is doing it' excuse.

You trust their version of certain events and I have serious doubts. That's what I meant by that.

chopitdown · June 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I choose not to fall back on the old 'everyone else is doing it' excuse.

You trust their version of certain events and I have serious doubts. That's what I meant by that.

it wasn't excusing my actions, it merely is what happens.

thanks for the clarification. have a good one.

freedomboy · June 2007

Specifics wrote:

Conspiracy:

The powers that be (even here in the west!) are corrupt and generally have no issue with harming/killing their own people to achieve their aims.
The press does not tell us the truth, the government does not tell us the truth.
There are powerful people pulling strings to keep the status quo exactly that, at the expense of the majority of people.
Questions = eventual truth

Realist:

america needs a strong military to protect it from Mexican drug lords and Reds intent on invading.
The people need to militarise to prevent their national miltary from invading, as well as to fight off said Mexican drug lords and Reds.
Any attempt to breed understanding and tolerance thru education is an attempt by the lefties to turn everyone gay and lazy.
Questions = stupidity and are unpatriotic.

so who stands in the light and who hides in the shadows of the bigger boys?

Conspiracy Theorist:

1. The United States Government is being controlled by a wealthy elite cult called the Free Masons or the Illuminati...

2. The Twin Towers fell due to a controlled demolition as a few fuzzy home video tapes can prove.

3. The media is also controlled by the same rich elite Free Masons and Illuminati and it is in their best interest to filter everything viewers see, especially the facts.

4. Facts = Unprovable and lead to paranoia, a loss of hope, and a loss of credibility to the general public.

Realist:

1. The majority of the United States Government is built from corrupt wealthy men who put their own greed before what is best for their constituents. Corrupt wealthy C.E.O.s lobby together to pay off these politicians to ensure they get what is in their best interest.

2. The Twin Towers fell in retaliation of our foreign policy, and the fact that the Bush Administration failed to take action on prior evidence given that these attacks would take place. Furthermore, they then used that impeachable mistake to push an illegal war on an oil rich country.

3. The United States media is victim of the same greed that the C.E.O.s and politicians are. It is cheaper to report on celebrity happenings and pre-created Government propaganda than it is to send trained investigators out to do REAL investigation. Furthermore, many of the owners of these media conglomerates are benefiting themselves from government corruption and never ending war.

4. Facts = Provable evidence that can be used to plant seeds for progressive change.

Victim of Propaganda:

1. The United States government has too many liberals in it. They have taken God out of our schools and they have imposed too many taxes on us for programs that many American's don't deserve.

2. The Twin Towers fell because of those evil terrorists in other countries who hate our freedom, and the freedoms our women have... They also hate the liberal gay agenda in this country.

3. The liberal elite are constantly pushing their abortion loving, liberal, gay agenda on our families. They want to tear down and destroy good people like President George Walker Bush.

4. Facts = Liberal Propaganda.

spiral out · June 2007

brokendave wrote:

Conspiracy Theorist:

1. The United States Government is being controlled by a wealthy elite cult called the Free Masons or the Illuminati...

2. The Twin Towers fell due to a controlled demolition as a few fuzzy home video tapes can prove.

3. The media is also controlled by the same rich elite Free Masons and Illuminati and it is in their best interest to filter everything viewers see, especially the facts.

4. Facts = Unprovable and lead to paranoia, a loss of hope, and a loss of credibility to the general public.

Realist:

1. The majority of the United States Government is built from corrupt wealthy men who put their own greed before what is best for their constituents. Corrupt wealthy C.E.O.s lobby together to pay off these politicians to ensure they get what is in their best interest.

2. The Twin Towers fell in retaliation of our foreign policy, and the fact that the Bush Administration failed to take action on prior evidence given that these attacks would take place. Furthermore, they then used that impeachable mistake to push an illegal war on an oil rich country.

3. The United States media is victim of the same greed that the C.E.O.s and politicians are. It is cheaper to report on celebrity happenings and pre-created Government propaganda than it is to send trained investigators out to do REAL investigation. Furthermore, many of the owners of these media conglomerates are benefiting themselves from government corruption and never ending war.

4. Facts = Provable evidence that can be used to plant seeds for progressive change.

Victim of Propaganda:

1. The United States government has too many liberals in it. They have taken God out of our schools and they have imposed too many taxes on us for programs that many American's don't deserve.

2. The Twin Towers fell because of those evil terrorists in other countries who hate our freedom, and the freedoms our women have... They also hate the liberal gay agenda in this country.

3. The liberal elite are constantly pushing their abortion loving, liberal, gay agenda on our families. They want to tear down and destroy good people like President George Walker Bush.

4. Facts = Liberal Propaganda.

This is maybe a bit more like it, the so called conspiricy theriosts here on this site are the realists and the realists on this site are the Victims of Propaganda.

Specifics · June 2007

brokendave wrote:

.............

Hey start your own thread for the real world, this ones about what goes on on this board!

Very nice tho, like it.

Conspiracy Vs Realist

Comments

Categories