Questions to Ask About the Illuminati

Page 4 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Jul 2013, 4:55 pm

CAL_1138 wrote:

We already went over this... you are assuming that there is no conspiracy - that is the negative. I am asking you to look at the facts before you determine it's a negative.

We went over it? lol. No, that is not the negative. My suggestion is to read a book on logic or critical thinking. Make sure that the fallacy of proving a negative is included.

CAL_1138 wrote:

WTF? This makes absolutely no sense.... You completely dodged the issue or ou need to do a much better job explaining yourself...

Look, this discussion is not going anywhere. Your mind is already made up. I have done my best to explain the points I have raised. Anything else I say will just repeat myself.

CAL_1138 wrote:

]The elite - they became elite because they are an organization that infiltrates all walks of society at the highest level and work together or this purpose. The methods are discussed earlier in the thread. They use all methods - legal and illegal. What methods are used to enforce the laws in any "organization"? Another way I have herd it described is that the lie is different at every level. Just like here in the US the general population is working under the belief that we invaded Iraq because of WMD or 9-11. But people at the next stage may be working under a completely different lie.... which is why they have been convinced to look away as our civil liberties are eroded.

That is not evidence.

CAL_1138 wrote:

You are asking to explain the details of a secret organization... it's like asking people during WWII outside of Nazi Germany to explain how the German people were convinced to follow along with the Nazis... even now we may not fully know the truth.

An absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. See, I am repeating myself.

CAL_1138 wrote:

You are generalizing. The guy who made that documentary and wrote the book is a very bright guy.

That is the fallacy of authority. The person's alleged intelligence is not evidence.

My suggestion is to stop watching YouTube videos on this entire subject, and to read a book on intersectional theory (intersectionality). It is a contemporary sociological theory, which explains oppression much better than conspiracy theories of all-powerful, mysterious elites.

Since, however, you seem to like YouTube videos, try these:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWgRvHgkJlE[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66XEglI-EEo[/youtube]

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

CAL_1138
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 552

16 Jul 2013, 6:21 pm

Fnord wrote:

CAL_1138 wrote:

neilson_wheels wrote:

CAL_1138 wrote:

GODWIN'S LAW :roll:

Godwin's law doesn't apply to a discussion about conspiracies...

It applies to ANY on-line discussion.

Quote:

Godwin's Law (also known as "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies" or "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies") is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As any online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion - regardless of topic or scope - someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Since Godwin's Law has been fulfilled, this thread is no longer relevant to the original topic.

Thanks a lot, Cal. :roll:

It says REGARDLESS of TOPIC or SCOPE... that implies it is a topic that shouldn't involve WWII... a conspiracy topic clearly does.. especially in my case where this is all directly related to the Nazis.. to claim that is an example of Godwin's law shows the desperation of the skeptics completely.

Last edited by CAL_1138 on 16 Jul 2013, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CAL_1138
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 552

16 Jul 2013, 6:25 pm

nominalist wrote:

That is the fallacy of authority. The person's alleged intelligence is not evidence.

You just completely contradicted yourself... this is what the peer review process relies on - your claimed fallacy of authority. That is the entire point of the peer review process.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Jul 2013, 6:40 pm

CAL_1138 wrote:

You just completely contradicted yourself... this is what the peer review process relies on - your claimed fallacy of authority. That is the entire point of the peer review process.

Incorrect. The peer-review process is designed to prevent the fallacy of authority. Submitted articles are generally reviewed blind (without the writer's name on them).

CAL_1138
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 552

16 Jul 2013, 6:43 pm

nominalist wrote:

CAL_1138 wrote:

You just completely contradicted yourself... this is what the peer review process relies on - your claimed fallacy of authority. That is the entire point of the peer review process.

Incorrect. The peer-review process is designed to prevent the fallacy of authority. Submitted articles are generally reviewed blind (without the writer's name on them).

But they are reviewed by the elite of the discipline... which defeats the point you just claimed to make about fallacy of authority.. how is a handful of authorities any different? It's the same just on a larger scale....

Also watch the end of this video where they "peer review" cold fusion yet everyone in the room follows the lead of the main member - fallacy of authority indeed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NbBxDGSkI

What you don't get is that the things I have discovered are based on science.... you have no idea what I have discovered and how bizarre it is.. so you can't possibly imagine how this shows that the illuminati are real... but it does. To explain that to you I would have to explain everything I have discovered. But in your defense we have been conditioned to think these things are impossible... so people have no capability to think in this way... that's what conditioning does..

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Jul 2013, 7:14 pm

CAL_1138 wrote:

Again, incorrect. Any sociologist, and any academic in general, can peer review journal articles in her or his area of specialization.

CAL_1138 wrote:

What you don't get is that the things I have discovered are based on science.... you have no idea what I have discovered and how bizarre it is.. so you can't possibly imagine how this shows that the illuminati are real... but it does. To explain that to you I would have to explain everything I have discovered. But in your defense we have been conditioned to think these things are impossible... so people have no capability to think in this way... that's what conditioning does..

If they are that great, have them peer reviewed in a journal. We are not talking in the same universe, Cal.

CAL_1138
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 552

16 Jul 2013, 7:31 pm

nominalist wrote:

Again, incorrect. Any sociologist, and any academic in general, can peer review journal articles in her or his area of specialization.

Hypothetically they could but that's not actually how it works... you are ignoring reality if you think it does. PEER PRESSURE is the key.... and how the people in journals are selected is corrupt.

Quote:

If they are that great, have them peer reviewed in a journal. We are not talking in the same universe, Cal.

You aren't dealing with reality... how can you have something peer reviewed when there is no way to study these things because the scientific community ignores them?

Watch this documentary on Henrik Svensmark and see how long it took him to get petty cash to do his tiny study of great importance. See how the peer review system fails him...

Again.. you can't conceive of what I am dealing with because it is outside your frame of reference... that's by design.

Also... that Henrik Svensmark had a heart attack on live TV debating his theory.... one of the people that came to the same conclusion I did about this hidden technology died mysteriously of a heart attack too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Jul 2013, 7:53 pm

CAL_1138 wrote:

Again.. you can't conceive of what I am dealing with because it is outside your frame of reference... that's by design.

Cal,

This discussion isn't going anywhere. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, be a conspiracy theorist.

People like Alex Jones and "Hagmann and Hagmann" are contributing to the state of alienation among (mostly) white males in the U.S. They represent the last gasp of the defeated white power structure.

Jones has many competitors. Maybe you should join them.

This particular conversation is now over on my end. Either change the subject or continue it with others.

CAL_1138
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 552

16 Jul 2013, 8:03 pm

nominalist wrote:

CAL_1138 wrote:

Again.. you can't conceive of what I am dealing with because it is outside your frame of reference... that's by design.

Just answer me this...

Imagine there is someone in your family you trust completely... and this person told you they witnessed something personally that defied everything you had been told by the scientific community.. and then this story you were told was corroborated by someone else unrelated to your family member....

Would that change your views at all? Or would you disregard what your family member told you even though when you looked through the history of technology you saw the same things playing out also corroborating what seemed to be happening in the present....

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

16 Jul 2013, 8:38 pm

CAL_1138 wrote:

Just answer me this...

No. As I said, the conversation is over. Change the subject, or continue it with others.

CAL_1138
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 552

16 Jul 2013, 8:49 pm

nominalist wrote:

CAL_1138 wrote:

Just answer me this...

No. As I said, the conversation is over. Change the subject, or continue it with others.

That isn't how it works.. when you can't answer the questions you can't just say the conversation is over. You have wasted MY time.

Remember when one of the "skeptics" said conspiracy theorists were arrogant.. just look at this behavior. One of them refuses to even consider they could be wrong... this is the entire skeptic premise - total denial preventing them from even looking at the evidence. Burying their heads in the sand.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,961
Location:

17 Jul 2013, 12:12 pm

Cal, you have not answered any of the questions from the first post of this thread. Instead, you have been evasive and tried to rationalize your unwillingness to answer by accusing others of being arrogant and closed-minded. Either get back on track, or I'll ask the mods to lock this thread down completely.

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,680
Location: Over there

17 Jul 2013, 12:23 pm

We've been here before and it's not going to get any better - so an early retirement seems in order.
Locked in agreement with the OP's concerns.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

Page 4 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:

Questions to Ask About the Illuminati Post Reply New Topic

Questions to Ask About the Illuminati