TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- bioethics - what is morally acceptable?
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on May-27-2010 11:58:

Conspiracy theories: it is foolish to believe in all or even most of these. It is suicidal to believe in none.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-27-2010 12:07:

quote:
Originally posted by Tranceporter99
There is a difference between a nutjob, and believing some conspiracy theories.


nope. they are synonymous.


Posted by Lilith on May-27-2010 12:20:

There's a difference between being a sceptic and a 'true believer'
Ones a-
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
a fucking nutjob.


And the other one makes judgement on something based on collected evidence and placing that evidence under scrutiny until it either breaks or yields something of worth in an investigation.

Simply quoting youtube documentary vids and stuff you read on some anonymous blog does not constitute evidence, at best its worth further investigation, but that's about it.


Posted by nefardec on May-27-2010 16:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Kismet7
I have answers to all these, they are decent questions, with rather reasonable answers. But I need a lil break. Time for some music.


why don't you write an op-ed piece for the new york times and save us all from 'the man'?

i'm sure many people would love to have answers.



Enjoy listening to music made by people who use electronics made by global corporations by people with academic degrees, with your personal electronics made by corporations by people with academic degrees, kismet.

Do you ever think about who invented the internet when you post on here? It was essentially created the US military and institutions of higher education.

one thing worse than a 'shill' is a 'shill' who pretends he's not.


there's nothing wrong with being skeptical or anti-establishment, but your insanely pervasive, systemic idea of 'us-versus-them' is illusory, foolish, hypocritical, and just irrational.

you've inspired me to coin a portmanteau for you conspiracy nut job types: PSYCHOPHANT


Posted by Omega_Blue on May-27-2010 16:19:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, damn concious!


he must've meant "couscous"


Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on May-27-2010 17:43:

Awesome thread.


Posted by yukii on May-27-2010 18:05:

quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Awesome thread.


Posted by UWM on May-27-2010 21:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Kismet7
"im teh scsietntists but can you do my homeowrk"

the point which has flown over your dense heads, is that what i'm sharing here is knowledge and info that does not take institutional education to come about. it takes logic, reasoning, intelligence and basic research skills. in other words and as usual, you and clown possee have brought up something meaningless towards what has been shared so far.


It was all pretty entertaining, but this one really knocked it out of the park. You're something else, man.


Posted by Kismet7 on May-27-2010 23:46:

quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
why don't you write an op-ed piece for the new york times and save us all from 'the man'?

i'm sure many people would love to have answers.



Enjoy listening to music made by people who use electronics made by global corporations by people with academic degrees, with your personal electronics made by corporations by people with academic degrees, kismet.

Do you ever think about who invented the internet when you post on here? It was essentially created the US military and institutions of higher education.

one thing worse than a 'shill' is a 'shill' who pretends he's not.


there's nothing wrong with being skeptical or anti-establishment, but your insanely pervasive, systemic idea of 'us-versus-them' is illusory, foolish, hypocritical, and just irrational.

you've inspired me to coin a portmanteau for you conspiracy nut job types: PSYCHOPHANT


why would the NY Times publish anything that jeopordizes their marketing dolllars, by allowing op ed pieces that cover the topics covered here.

quote:

one thing worse than a 'shill' is a 'shill' who pretends he's not.

I agree and they're probably 'psychophants'


Posted by nefardec on May-28-2010 02:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Kismet7
why would the NY Times publish anything that jeopordizes their marketing dolllars, by allowing op ed pieces that cover the topics covered here.


presumably to discredit their opponents by allowing them to spew nonsense


Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.