|
Osama Bin Laden Is Dead (pg. 40)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
There's the pic all around the internet already. I wouldn't say it looks chopped :p |
It's way chopped. Check the link I posted a few pages ago. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Indeed, but this would require such an epic conspiracy that, albeit possible, is really infeasible. Besides...
[CNN]
Finding out the "truth" in this case would definitely give journalists a Pullitzer prize or something. Isn't it strange that everyone, even the media, is "playing along"?
I don't quite understand what you said after the question. Are you talking about how fallible speakers are?
There's the pic all around the internet already. I wouldn't say it looks chopped :p |
yeah, I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy theory, I was just saying there are alternatives to what's been given, and your interpretation of the state of things, but was in no way endorsing them-- the point was, if you choose a belief about something without reason (belief on past experience/glossed hopes (people are good) etc not being counted) then there's no reason you should be more 'accurate' than a conspiracy theorist simply because people in power/the majority told you its true... You're both basing beliefs off of analogical evidence, and faith.
I was saying the skeptic is more 'right' because they are asking for proof before believing, while anti-skeptics sponsor (essentially) blind faith. Faith in figures who have been known to lie, and also who we have no true knowledge about (we're not politicians and don't know how they get facts, what they keep from the public, what they decide to tell us etc)-- saying you have faith in the source means you 1: Have complete knowledge of the source, and 2: Are in a position to know when the source is incorect. Neither of these is the case, since 1: We don't know wtf the president knows, or even his role behind doors, and 2: There's no way for us to disprove what he says, since there are no intersubjective/objective facts for us to get a hold of ourselves... It's infallible/unfalsifiable.
the broad point was though, that skepticism is not a standpoint that can be attacked, because it's asking, not telling. You're telling. You supply the evidence for what you're saying then we'll be happy :)
but this is of course all beside the point. I believe he's dead as much as I believe he ever lived, I'm just a general skeptic, so thought I'd chime in, since its ing annoying that doubt gets confused with conspiracy etc-- conspiracy theorists aren't skeptics, they're (generally) idiots.
Cor version: 1: Anybody asking for proof about claims YOU defend is most likely skeptical about what you are saying, but is NOT offering alternatives, and is therefore not a conspiracy theorist, merely someone who doesn't mindlessly gulp down beliefs. 2: Anybody making a positive statement is usually not a skeptic. :gsmile: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
yeah, I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy theory, I was just saying there are alternatives to what's been given,
|
Such as? |
|
|
| d-miurge |
********'s father? |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Such as? |
Yeah, sorry-- the conspiracy theories are the alternatives I was referring to, I just don't at all support them :p
the polarising point which you will love PKC was that they are based on similar levels of 'factual' knowledge, since beliefs on either side have no basis except in faith-- anti-skeptics believe their overlords, and conspiracy theorists believe the voices in their heads, but neither are basing their beliefs on objectively available facts |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| I think the reason to believe our “overlords” is because alternative narratives don’t make any sense. What “facts” are needed do you think? Do I really have to perform the DNA test myself in order to be satisfied with the results, or is it acceptable to believe that the US is capable of doing such tests? |
|
|
| stren |
| Why is this even a discussion? I think if Osama was not really dead, he wouldn't have much trouble proving that ? would've been pretty embarrassing if US lied about his death, no ? |
|
|
| Domesticated |
Thanks for understanding my point Egos. As you said, I'm not making or ardently refuting any claim, just looking for evidence.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
One man being dead is not an 'extreme claim' at all. In fact, the people downplaying this issue as such are completely right - it's just one man - why celebrate?
To doubt the veracity of the claim is to doubt the authority from which it has been issued, one that has supplied DNA evidence toward it. Do you believe that they are mistaken, or do you believe that they are lying to you - that is what separates conspiracy theorists from casual skeptics in this scenario. Furthermore, even if you were provided with photographic evidence - do you believe you are totally qualified to know what you are looking at? Or do you believe the photo might be doctored? One can apply the same criteria to "DNA evidence", no?
There is a point where skepticism becomes listless, and this point is probably different for everyone. It becomes necessary for one to put forth an issue of motive when they are to call into question the claims of an authority consisting of thousands of individuals all cooperating with one another. |
Of course a photo can be doctored. However, like plastic surgery there are experts who can tell when there has been tampering. Releasing a photo to the public would allow for independent verification, from anyone who knows photoshop. As I said, a DNA test means we have to take their word for it. That is why I wanted a photo.
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
Me too, and it makes me feel weird that he thinks the United States fabricated a carefully planned strike on Bin Laden by highly trained Navy SEALS. |
Are you fucking kidding me? Go and read up about the United Fruit company and the CIA in Niacaragua, or the United States current involvement in Bolivia. Your government does tons of underhanded which has been confirmed by reliable sources. They have a long, dirty history of these kind of tactics.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Finding out the "truth" in this case would definitely give journalists a Pullitzer prize or something. Isn't it strange that everyone, even the media, is "playing along"? |
You're making the exact same mistake as srussell. This happened out in the middle of the Pakistani countryside, then the body was disposed of before the announcement was made. It didn't happen in the middle of New York, and there were no media there. If this were false, no one would be "playing along"; they'd simply be reporting what information has been made available to them by the people who did the killing. The very same people who would have something to gain from it.
As I said, if this story is false, it doesn't mean he's alive. No one would be stupid enough to fake that when he could possibly surface again. What it might mean is that he was killed years ago, and they only just found out. Think about it. If you were the leader of a country hungry for revenge and you discovered that, would you announce, "We found Osama, he committed suicide by hanging himself." No, you'd say, "We carried out an purposeful operation and killed him ourselves."
That's an example, and I'm not claiming that's how it went, but it's just a possibility, and one which would be incredibly easy to lie about and cover up. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I think the reason to believe our “overlords” is because alternative narratives don’t make any sense. What “facts” are needed do you think? Do I really have to perform the DNA test myself in order to be satisfied with the results, or is it acceptable to believe that the US is capable of doing such tests? |
yeah the main problem is I obscured the current case with skepticism in general--
A hard skeptic would say yes, but in this instance, I don't think domesticated was necesarily wrong for suggesting that the DNA test seems a bit weird just because it seems weird they have any comparison... It seems unlikely his DNA would have just handily been on file somewhere, for example... Since he said a photo would suffice, or other proof though, that's no really that 'hard'; its tangible, and any n00b can see it for themselves :)
For a hard skeptic, unless you had direct knowledge of DNA, and the tests which outline them it probably wouldn't be real proof just to believe dna tests prove anything, but that's the ad absurdum/slippery slope style which quickly ends in nothing existing in the world, except our own minds, and is obviously to be avoided here, not because it's false, but because it's loonnnggggg :p -- |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by stren
Why is this even a discussion? I think if Osama was not really dead, he wouldn't have much trouble proving that ? would've been pretty embarrassing if US lied about his death, no ? |
This seems like a pretty reasonable assessment to me. I haven't read all arguments posed in the thread but I'm with you on this--if he isn't dead, then he's certainly in our custody and nobody besides top government officials and those tasked with torturing him will ever know otherwise.
Domesticated, having just read your previous comments: if he had been dead for years why would his followers claim that he is still alive, as I recall hearing last night? If their objective is to discredit the US wouldn't it be more prudent to lay the truth on us: "that motha a died years ago. we have all the evidence niggas. check it" |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
You’re a ing dead. |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
|
|
