Trancer, you do realize that using terms such as sheeple, sheep, uninformed, unenlightened, will only turn people against what you have to say right? It's all pretty much on the level of Chrles "terrorist-lover" comments, and Latinloser's "You don't support bush so you hate america" BS. It really gets old after a while..

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Lesbinazi

Cute. And an ad hominem.

quote:

Just for humor's sake, could you guys please let me know how constantly ridiculing those who stand in opposition of the status quo while defending imperialism could lead to enlighenment?

I've never ridiculed you for "standing in opposition of the status quo" - in fact, I used to try and debate you on that. We just call you out when you go around calling people unenlightened, corporate shills, or "lesbinazis" because they don't agree with you.

___________________

Pointing out fallacies usually shuts people up...

http://tranceaddict.com/forums/show...66&pagenumber=3

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Pointing out fallacies usually shuts people up... http://tranceaddict.com/forums/show...66&pagenumber=3

Hasn't been working recently

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dont argue with the yanks nutter, they know best!

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Hasn't been working recently

Well, usually, the one whose made the fallacy will do several things...

1. Try to change the subject.
2. Repeat the fallacy later on.
3. Stop responding.
4. OR admit their mistake!

Well, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

1. If they try to change th subject, point it out, and force them to acknowledge the CURRENT argument.

2. If they continue to argue the same point, thus repeating the fallacy, point it out every time they make the fallacy. Perhaps explain the fallacy so they can understand their failed logic. OR, simply requote yourself pointing out their faulty logic. In the link I posted, how many times did I have to reply to donnybrasco every time he made the same logical fallacy? Eventually, he gave up, because simple logic really is impossible to argue against UNLESS the same standard of logic is used to produce a counter point. He clearly failed in that aim.

3. If they stop responding, good for you, you won the argument!

4. If they admit their mistake, even better. The point of debate is to decide what is truth and false. Logic and argumentation theory in the hands of a good debater is almost infallible. USE THE FORCE !!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Having a standard to compare any argument against really is one of the best ways to win arguments. You know your viewpoints are grounded in rationality and one can be confident in their ability to practice critical thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Trancer, you do realize that using terms such as sheeple, sheep, uninformed, unenlightened, will only turn people against what you have to say right? It's all pretty much on the level of Chrles "terrorist-lover" comments, and Latinloser's "You don't support bush so you hate america" BS. It really gets old after a while..

You all can certainly dish it out but you sure can't take it, can you? Oh well.

After having endured all sorts of 'conspiracy theorist' ad hominems for so long on this board, I guess I've actually become a bit cynical regarding the fate of humanity and am somehow releasing my associated frustration through vituperative attacks on what I consider to be the biggest reason for our impending downfall, sheepishness.

The sheepishness in which I speak of is evident by people's apparent unwillingness or inability to fully question our often misperceived reality, especially in the face of our having engaged in a costly and (projected to be) overly protracted war on a conveniently elusive and almost all too mysterious enemy which may possibly have been based on false evidence to begin with.

Anyway, history will tell us who was fighting in hopes of trying to maintain what's left of our freedom while others were simply fighting in order to fight.

I'll let history be my judge, not a bunch of sheep.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You all can certainly dish it out but you sure can't take it, can you? Oh well. After having endured all sorts of 'conspiracy theorist' ad hominems for so long on this board, I guess I've actually become a bit cynical regarding the fate of humanity and am somehow releasing my associated frustration through vituperative attacks on what I consider to be the biggest reason for our impending downfall, sheepishness. The sheepishness in which I speak of is evident by people's apparent unwillingness or inability to fully question our often misperceived reality, especially in the face of our having engaged in a costly and (projected to be) overly protracted war on a conveniently elusive and almost all too mysterious enemy which may possibly have been based on false evidence to begin with. Anyway, history will tell us who was fighting in hopes of trying to maintain what's left of our freedom while others were simply fighting in order to fight. I'll let history be my judge, not a bunch of sheep.

No one's denying the Bush administration is a prime example of executive incompetence, and ideological fundamentalism on the opposite spectrum of Al-Qaida. But labelling people as sheep won't win you any new converts..

You are a 911 truther which does make you a CTer; sorry dude, but it's true. I enjoy your opinions, but I'de like to see more spoken word from Trancer instead of articles I certainly don't have time to read because you post so many! Make your article support a SPECIFIC point of your opinion, then people might be more inclined to read. People want to debate you, but can't if you post articles and videos which can't be argued against because the authors are not in the TA PDD, get it?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No one's denying the Bush administration is a prime example of executive incompetence, and ideological fundamentalism on the opposite spectrum of Al-Qaida. But labelling people as sheep won't win you any new converts.. You are a 911 truther which does make you a CTer; sorry dude, but it's true. I enjoy your opinions, but I'de like to see more spoken word from Trancer instead of articles I certainly don't have time to read because you post so many! Make your article support a SPECIFIC point of your opinion, then people might be more inclined to read. People want to debate you, but can't if you post articles and videos which can't be argued against because the authors are not in the TA PDD, get it?

Okay, well, to begin with, I think that's an extremely flawed analysis based first and foremost on your assumption that I'm a part of any movement other than my own. Perhaps labeling people who don't agree with the government's veritably flawed (something which has been stated by the head commissioneers, themselves) 9/11 Commission Report has just become a well-worn shortcut in your thinking process or maybe it's just your simple but ingenuitive (and quite blatantly deceptive) way of trying to relegate me to whatever fringe crowd that you might somehow think that you're able to get me to cling to.

The main problem here is that if you actually took as much interest in the truth as you did in trying to ameliorate people's perceptions of our corporately run government and the out of control status quo, you might see that there are A WHOLE LOT of people who don't accept the findings of the 9/11 Commission with many of those people being (or having been) government insiders, themselves.

There appears to be many more unanswered questions than there are answered ones so I think that it's rather sensible to keep asking them until they are finally answered.

Many of us just want to know the truth and are tired of the bullsh*t (official) explanations, explanations like the ones which have been so easily picked apart by kids with video cameras and YouTube accounts as well as those which have been picked apart by government insiders and investigative journalists like Daniel Hopsicker and Mike Ruppert.

You seem like a smart guy so I want to know how that's really so hard for you to figure out. I really don't think that it is.

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31

quote:

Columnist David Corn has also criticized the Ruppert's methodology, and dismisses the idea that conspiracy theorizing is useful: "In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison."

Valid point.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Okay, well, to begin with, I think that's an extremely flawed analysis based first and foremost on your assumption that I'm a part of any movement other than my own. Perhaps labeling people who don't agree with the government's veritably flawed (something which has been stated by the head commissioneers, themselves) 9/11 Commission Report has just become a well-worn shortcut in your thinking process or maybe it's just your simple but ingenuitive (and quite blatantly deceptive) way of trying to relegate me to whatever fringe crowd that you might somehow think that you're able to get me to cling to. There appears to be many more unanswered questions than there are answered ones so I think that it's rather sensible to keep asking them until they are finally answered.

1. What is a 911 thruther, and how are you not one? From what I've read in the 911 threads, you believe the government is responsible somehow for 911 no? What do you suggest I call your political views? Are they not conspiratorial?
2. How are you so sure you really know the truth? Do you have empirical evidence? I am very much skeptical as to the extreme degree you believe government corruption is, especially when you use a logical fallacy to support your argument...

quote:

The main problem here is that if you actually took as much interest in the truth as you did in trying to ameliorate people's perceptions of our corporately run government and the out of control status quo, you might see that there are A WHOLE LOT of people who don't accept the findings of the 9/11 Commission with many of those people being (or having been) government insiders, themselves.

argumentum ad populum - Just because "A WHOLE LOT of people" believe one argument, that does not make the argument true. Any argument which has logical fallacies within it will always be viewed highly skeptically by me, as I don't accept false premises. Your argument is no different.

You should certainly ask as many questions as you can, but, if you already have the answer already in your mind, what's the point of asking a question? Are you capable of examining anything which is contrary to your interpretation of reality? Because I don't think you are. And if you can't even entertain the possibility that you may be wrong, you've lost all objectivity.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. What is a 911 thruther, and how are you not one? From what I've read in the 911 threads, you believe the government is responsible somehow for 911 no? What do you suggest I call your political views? Are they not conspiratorial? 2. How are you so sure you really know the truth? Do you have empirical evidence? I am very much skeptical as to the extreme degree you believe government corruption is, especially when you use a logical fallacy to support your argument... This is an argumentum ad populum. Just because "A WHOLE LOT of people" believe one argument, that does not make it so. It is a false premise which should not be used your argument. You should certainly ask as many questions as you can, but, if you already have the answer already in your mind, what's the point of asking a question? Are you capable of examining anything which is contrary to your interpretation of reality? Because I don't think you are. And if you can't even entertain the possibility that you may be wrong, you've lost all objectivity.

Logic itself tells me that "9/11 Truther" is just another epithet or label that people have been using in order to discredit an otherwise positive and accountability seeking movement in order to not have to use their own rational thinking abilities to delve any further than our own governments' whitewash of an official report.

If I was going to allow myself to be labeled at all, I guess I'd be okay with "existence truther" because I yearn to fully understand the world as it is, not as it's been (and continues to be) falsely portrayed by an entire network of disinformation agents. We're not just being deceived on one level, anyway. We're being manipulated deeply and all-encompassingly and it's not just socially or economically but also psychologically, intellectually, physically, politically and even spiritually.

Anyway, I've been actively searching for the truth for a few years now and it seems that the closer I get, the more resistance I encounter from people like yourself. It's funny how that works,isn't it?

I've also listened to too many firsthand accounts of government corruption as has been told by relatives, friends, neighbors, etc., to not believe it. Also, due diligence has played a large factor in my growing discontent over our currently flawed and highly abused system. I enjoy doing my due diligence

So how about you, how have grown to be so blindly trusting of a lying, deceiving, crony-capitalistic bureaucracy? That's something that I would like to know.

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31