|
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I gave you "evidence" or reasons rather as to why I'm skeptical... |
no, what you gave was your regular sermon on how nothing in the western establishment is to be trusted, which funnily enough i agree with, assuming the evidence supports the claim. unfortunately for you, this latest incident doesn't really have any yet.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
if you choose to ignore or obfuscate it... oh well, that's just too bad then. Part of critical thinking is not restricting yourself to any paradigms, suspending biases and assumptions (especially ones that directly contradict the lessons of history), and avoiding limitations any framework (wheather real or conttrived) imposes on thought. So it's illogical or irrational of me to be skeptical of claims coming from instituions and / or organizations that have a track record of lack of transparency, deception, coersion of domestic populations, unprovoked military agression, and false flag terrorism? |
im sorry to do this to you shaolin, but
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
There's a word of a difference between accusations and suspecion. |
but, asides from the supposed activities of MI5 (i would enjoy reading a collection of MI-5s previous bombings of UK citizens if you have it handy) what else do you have?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Oddly enough, expressing that predictabley generates a juvenile reponse from you. Q was actually trying to have a discussion with me, as opposed to you who trolls "anti-establishment" positions everywhere. It's really beggining to get old... and it doesn't exactly boost your credibility eigther. |
perhaps i feel that an accusation (or suspicion or other synonym we choose to arrive at) without any evidence to support it deserves nothing more than a patronising quip?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
There, I answered all your questions. Oddly enough you didn't address a thing I said or answer any of my questions. Obfuscating the points I made by failing to address them and twist the rest ridiculously out of context to me sounds like that special list of "ten commandments" you have is infact your bible . Try addressing what I say for once, the entire argument preferably if you wish to point out flaws in it or my reasoning. Not selective tid bits you can misrepresent. |
um, what points did you make? all i saw was a bunch of shaolin's bias screaming to get out.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Make a list of different perspectives I have on various issues and then please show me how much of it falls in the category of "constant attraction to ideas that have no evidence to support them." |
well, anything to do with 911 for starters.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And for God's sake, learn how to differentiate between evidence and proof. You say you've studied logic formally in college, you must have been a terrible at it as you don't know the difference between the two terms. |
yeah, hated principles of argument. bored the crap out of me like most philosophy. i am in no way confusing evidence and proof, what you have argued thus far isn't even evidence. it is rationale for suspicion. but "suspicion" alone isn't really enough to say
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Sounds like an MI5 job to me |
now is it? again, i want evidence directly related to this incident, and this incident only. a rather lack-lustre false flag operation, wouldnt you admit? no deaths, no spectacular media scenes in order to create (as you suggest) fear and distrust?
i know some people hate to realise it, but islamic extremists generate enough fear and distrust of muslims all by themselves.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You acknowledged how these instituions have historically operated, yet that's not reason enough to suspect them of displaying similar behaviour? LOL, alright. I guess next time you know someone's a rapist and murderer, you should be comfortable with them taking your friend on a date. |
well, i didnt really acknowledge such, but i do realise that western governments have done things they're not proud of. still though, i am unaware of any bombings being carried out against UK citizens by MI 5 or 6.
i know the western ideals of law must really stick in your craw sometimes but one is innocent until proven guilty, and one cannot have ones previous crimes used as evidence to convict them of their current charge.
so, do you believe in the innocent until proven guilty system of law? and if so, why do you have such a strong tendency to condemn those without a correspondingly strong amount of evidence?
if there isn't enough evidence to satisfy a court just yet, then i must ask why you feel equipped to engage in libel against members of her majesty's government when all indications (so far) suggest the act of an islamic extremist?
___________________
|