NWO Monetary System

Post Reply New Topic

No, what is it?

Groom lake is easy enough to find *shrugs* I suppose I think lizards are flying those UFO's too.

The point was you dispute ANY inkling that your reality might not be how it is proscribed to you in this top down structure. I challenged you to look into the London Bombings because I feel confident that government complicity can be reasonably shown and purely because you portray yourself as having a monopoly on knowing what constitutes reality. That conceitedness is in itself is a mind virus - you might as well of been describing your own thought process' for all intent and purpose.

You keep saying 'i'm not concerned; 'i'm not interested in that' yet nevertheless seem to relatively vocal in denouncing any idea which doesn't reside in the accepted consensus view. .and yet when challenged on it - 'ooh, i;m not so interested'

I think the 'i'm not interested in that' line is simply a cop out *shrugs*

of course there is the option that you don't know what the f*ck your talking about as well..

Human nature says we have to rebel against something - even if there's nothing to rebel against. That's when we start making up the causes... or just trying to pin our failings on someone else as their oppression of us. People just can't accept that the human condition is this septic without any kind of 'man' running the show or hoping to take them over. Thus, their self-sheltering and denial of reality becomes our problem .

Umm.... actually, my point is that I dispute grand theories for having to stand outside of mainstream conception to the point where they seem unrealistic.

I am avoiding this because I am really not interested. As for my "monopoly on what constitutes reality", well, most people implicitly hold one. I've just been mocking about conspiracy theorists because I don't hold them in high regard in general, and you keep on bugging me.

Umm... one can argue that the mind never escapes mind viruses. In any case, Concenik, I think the matter of the London Bombings is irrelevant in any case, because even if the government is complicit, it does not justify conspiracy theorists to any significant extent, particularly for theories on the level of involving the Federal Reserve, and things like that. In any case, I am relatively disinterested.


Ummm.... I am not interested. You are just unusually pugnacious, or haven't you noticed that? I just start getting more and more insulting and dismissive the further I am pushed. Here have been my arguments to date:
1) The Federal Reserve really is ok.(I don't think people have done much to challenge me on this)
2) A conspiracy theory worldview is likely unconfirmable because most of the people who would be most expected to find this to be true do not, thus the evidence in favor of it must be extraordinary, and such to a degree that it is not likely to ever be acceptable by any rational individual.

I am only mildly interested in the 1st argument. I just put forward the 2nd argument because it seems valid for why most people reject conspiracy theories, and it seems valid, as your notion of "compartmentalization" really does not impact it to any significant degree(despite your cries to the contrary)

I actually don't care. I usually avoid debates about specific conspiracy ideas, and leave those to people who actually care. I also don't even think that this argument is relevant to our 2 topics at all. I mean, whether or not you are right on this one topic is only barely related to whether or not there is a massive conspiracy.


And I think you are just another annoying conspiracy theorist who cannot grasp why nobody really takes their claims of "aliens", "intelligent designers", "floating Elvis's", "Illuminati", "lizards", "NWOs", etc seriously, and also gets peeved when the people who do oppose really aren't *that* interested about these concepts because they really lack anything more than a general interest.

As it stands, politics are barely on my radar of interest, history is further off, and I care more about theoretical concerns. Both of the arguments I advanced in this thread are theoretical concerns, as one relates to economic systems, and the other relates to rational decision making as it relates to accepting or rejecting the idea of a conspiracy theory. I really am uninterested, and even if you started the thread, I would be very unlikely to post, as I usually only will bother posting in a conspiracy theory issue that is on that broad scale that I can relate to.

In any case, you might not believe that I am disinterested in this matter, but I *really AM* disinterested.

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

and I have been hearing that you guys have not been playing nice. Any truth to the rumor?

Merle

Absolutely not! You know we never misbehave here in PPR!

well good. I am glad you are all having fun argueing your points

by the way, the other part of Occam's razor is :

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

"plurality should not be posited without necessity."

it is my guiding light in modding.

Merle

AG's rogaine:
"plurality should be posited so long as it makes fun of Orwell for some half-insane reason"

Sorry Merle, I was being facetitious to delerium..

haha Good one. I'll be sure to bear that in mind should I ever make a post about any of these things.

I indeed probably have been rather pugnacious - I think I must be slightly allergic to incipient conceitedness and the vomiting of stereotypes in the manner of a broken record masquerading as intellect *shrugs*

It's a valid point but not necessarily the reality.

ZOMG! Teh lizards are taking over the world! Teh Aliens have come to enslave the human populace! RUN FOR IT!
First time I've heard of a flying Elvis. I'll be sure to keep my eyes on the sky!
WHERE ARE YOU ELVIS!?

And to an outsider, the claim of a New World Order sounds like it is on the same level.

Look, I already made my comparison between Concenik and the evangelical Christian about the resurrection, where they might want an atheist to confront those facts, but an atheist is not forced to argue the matter. Concenik can disagree with the validity of my comparison, however, I think it is perfectly valid, so I do not have to argue whether the specific instance is valid, particularly given that unlike the Christian resurrection, this one thing being true does not show anything is true outside of this instance.

You can disrespect that, but I only came into this conversation because I believed the criticism of the Federal Reserve was on bad grounds, and then I agreed with a global level criticism of conspiracy theories, that they defy previously accepted claims to an extent that the conspiracy theory is difficult to accept. I also was willing to defend both of these arguments. Concenik is only angry because I am not interested in another level of argument, so he is whining and complaining about that, because I am exercising the freedom to refuse to participate in a subject that I am relatively uninterested in. Heck, if he challenged me on the resurrection, I would actually be more likely to participate, but I am not interested in conspiracy theories to any great extent, and my posting history shows that I have only been interested in combating the larger scale claims(which just require the analysis of available knowledge), but not the smaller scale claims relating to particular instances.

I think if you had spent much time in the Global 'South' you'd realise the inaccuracy of this statement. I suspect you are mistaking the Anglo-centric view as the panacea - a mistake often made by so called 'educated' Westerners *shrugs*



I am not angry..I still stand by my opinion of you being a 'cop out' - you seem vocal enough to denounce 'conspiracy theorists' as fools until directly challenged and then shirk it off under the pretense of 'no interest' - I'm certainly not 'evangelising' and tbh have little regard for such patent small mindedness. I challenged you AG because you immediately degenerated into repeated slurs of believing in 'lizards' and 'chasing after UFO's etc etc when contended.

If you wish to twirl around claiming 'conspiracy theorists' are affected by a 'mind virus' but nevertheless run a mile when one offers an open debate into something as tangible as the London Bombings, then that's your look out but yellow is the appropriate colour for your avatar.

No matter, I feel pretty sure I'll be banned from this myopic circle jerk pretty soon anyhow.

oh, gawd no! You are just getting broken in!

Merle