|
linkamathingy
Aspiring Mycologist


Registered: 10/27/10
Posts: 1,235
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Many buffoons still believe it was a government plot and that explosives were used.
It doesn't get much funnier than that.
the whole government didn't have to be in on it. there's plenty of explosives evidence and NIST didnt' even test for explosives in the residue, even though it's standard operating procedure when witnesses hear explosions. check my sig for a professional firefighter talking about it.
-------------------- SCIENCE!!! If NIST didn't even investigate whether explosives were used, how can we trust their investigation? It's a rule whenever explosions are heard. Though I Laugh EyegasmArt.com anonymous: without name Anonymous: a group with a name don't be fooled, have a revolution on your own terms.
|
Led Zeppelin
Tripper


Registered: 05/17/10
Posts: 3,962
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Many buffoons still believe it was a government plot and that explosives were used.
It doesn't get much funnier than that.
It doesnt get much funnier than you saying someone deserved to be banned when stating their views about a world event..
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: I think you got what you deserved once you spouted that 9/11 crap.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Many buffoons still believe it was a government plot and that explosives were used.
It doesn't get much funnier than that.
Have you ever considered that both might be wrong?
when you do a scientific criminal investigation of any kind you base your conspiracy theory on the evidence. The official story is a conspiracy theory as well, let me break it down for you.
Conspiracy
*source
Quote:
1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Theory:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Quote:
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Now that we all understand the definitions of these words, we can see that ANY version of what happened is a theory.
The official story is not a scientific law.
Lets break it down again:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Quote:
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Now for the "official story" to be law there has to be absolutely no evidence to dispute it.
However, there is a lot of evidence that does dispute it, therefore it is at best a theory, but more like a hypothesis.
lets break it down again;
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Quote:
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Either way, the official story, is at best a conspiracy theory.
In my experience and opinion the term "conspiracy theory" has been perpetuated, and made libel by those involved in the conspiracies themselves.
Look, If someone on this message board gets busted for drugs, the court prosecutor will put forth a theory, which is supported by evidence, of your conspiracy to do and/or sell drugs.
you should stop using the term the way you are, it makes you look kind of unintelligent and uneducated, and it certainly indicates that you are not familiar with, or respect scientific method.
You should be calling people "conspiracy hypothesists" if you really want to libel / slander them like you are.
Edited by Shins (07/11/11 07:36 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
As Seuss instructed: the Conspiracy Forum is the appropriate place for conspiracy theories- this thread isn't.
Your semantic arguments and strawman attacks will fit nicely over there.
|
OoBYCoO
One grow down, a million to go!!



Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 8,120
Loc: USA
Last seen: 10 years, 4 days
|
|
Discovery Channel Secrets of Seal Team 6: For three decades, the elite government operatives of SEAL TEAM VI have existed under the radar, but now, their cover is blown. We’ll uncover the classified information the government doesn’t want you to know and discover the SECRETS OF SEAL TEAM 6.
http://www.putlocker.com/file/23006991C6A503ED#
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: As Seuss instructed: the Conspiracy Forum is the appropriate place for conspiracy theories- this thread isn't.
Your semantic arguments and strawman attacks will fit nicely over there.
When conspiracies involve politicians or have political repercussions, it is certainly fit for this forum and thread.
Observing facts and formulating theories based on these political conspiracies is a prime function of the political process.
It is not fair or honest to segregate one political conspiracy theory over another based on personal political preferences.
it is political censorship, and it has been observed to be practiced by people with certain political preferences, goals, or alliances. It is a political conspiracy in itself.
Furthermore, it is extremely asinine and ignorant to suggest or assume that political conspiracies never happen, and are not fit topics for political discussion.
The misunderstanding of all of these word definitions and points I have brought up in this post and the last, are also pertinent to the political process, and the vulgar, slanderous terms are in fact being perpetuated for political reasons.
Furthermore, it is just all about respect for scientific method, and pertinent understanding of due process, proper definitions, and justice.
It is about how people investigate these matters and about how their reactions to them indicate how much of a scientist they are, and how scientifically minded they are and how they investigated the matter.
Anyone who believes that Osama was killed on may 1 appears to be a simpleton who does not respect, or practice scientific method, nor care about truth, due process, and so on.
They care about their own political hypothesis and preferences, and not whether they are scientifically valid or not.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Shins]
#14755280 - 07/12/11 04:14 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Furthermore, it is extremely asinine and ignorant to suggest or assume that political conspiracies never happen, and are not fit topics for political discussion.
The problem is that we hear the same bullshit over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... then it goes away for awhile only to have somebody come along and think we might have missed something and it starts all over and over and over and over and over and over and over. There is an entire forum dedicated to over and over and over and over and over and you are more than welcome to post over and over and over and over and over there. I don't think any of the moderators here are worried about discussion that goes a bit down the conspiracy path assuming that the material is new. Unfortunately, the discussion will inevitably degrade into talk about the WTC and how the big bad bogey man did it... over and over and over and over...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
the human abstract
malaka the werewolf


Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 8,817
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Seuss]
#14755490 - 07/12/11 06:02 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
wow shins you really think people are reading that?
--------------------
★ ★★ ★
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Shins]
#14755525 - 07/12/11 06:19 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That was some funny shit.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Quote:
the human abstract said: wow shins you really think people are reading that?
It should resonate with people who care about science and literacy.
The fact is; there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that Osama was killed may 1.
If you believe he was, you are not a scientist you are a fanatic.
If you call someone a "conspiracy theorist" to slander them you are illiterate.
Plain and simple.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Shins]
#14755557 - 07/12/11 06:41 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Keeps getting funnier!
But it's OK to slander someone by calling them illiterate, when they are clearly not?
Too funny.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Keeps getting funnier!
But it's OK to slander someone by calling them illiterate, when they are clearly not?
Too funny.
I just sourced you the definitions to the words "conspiracy" and "theorist" if you still think "conspiracy theorist" is a negative term, you are illiterate because you obviously cannot read or understand my quotes and the definitions.
You would obviously not be a scientist either, because anyone who is the slightest bit educated about science and scientific method learned the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and law on one of the first days.
If you believe what the government and media has told you, you are basing your opinion on a very basic rhetoric fallacy as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Quote:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3. Therefore, C is true.
An argument from authority is a rhetoric fallacy let alone a scientific fallacy.
I don't know where you get "clearly not" i have made it clear.
You keep laughing because; as red hot chille peppers would say; "Sarcastic Mr. know it all"
I don't claim to know if Osama was or was not killed on may 1, but as the situation stands right now, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that he was.
The evidence actually more suggests that it was fake political theater in order to have an excuse to put pressure on Pakistan because that has since happened and there is evidence of it.
Edited by Shins (07/12/11 07:17 AM)
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores




Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,788
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Shins]
#14755620 - 07/12/11 07:15 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said: I just sourced you the definitions to the words "conspiracy" and "theorist" if you still think "conspiracy theorist" is a negative term, you are illiterate because you obviously cannot read or understand my quotes and the definitions.
How about the real definition of a "conspiracy theory" instead of trying to use to definitions of two separate words to justify your belief of what one is.
Quote:
conspiracy theory — n the belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied
It is a belief, not a factual thing. Any random idea put forth that contains a conspiracy element is considered a conspiracy theory whether or not there is any evidence to support it. Don't attempt to push the meaning of a "scientific theory" onto the term "conspiracy theory". A "scientific theory" has to have a large body of evidence for it to be considered a scientific theory, a conspiracy theory does not need a large body of evidence for it to qualify as a conspiracy theory.
Arguing semantics proves nothing other than you like to have arguments about semantics.
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Shins]
#14755639 - 07/12/11 07:26 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
Quote:
johnm214 said: As Seuss instructed: the Conspiracy Forum is the appropriate place for conspiracy theories- this thread isn't.
Your semantic arguments and strawman attacks will fit nicely over there.
When conspiracies involve politicians or have political repercussions, it is certainly fit for this forum and thread.
Observing facts and formulating theories based on these political conspiracies is a prime function of the political process.
It is not fair or honest to segregate one political conspiracy theory over another based on personal political preferences.
If your suggesting that viewpoint discrimination is occuring then it would be more helpful if you'd provide some evidence of this fact rather than implying it. Seuss can speak for himself, but, for my part, I find a conspiracy theory to be characterized by a speculative argument, lack of clear/direct supporting evidence for the proffered acts, and the implied collusion of powerful people with secret, nefarious, aims- that has nothing to do with the views of a particular moderator or poster. The 9/11 and Osama theories are amongst these conspiracy theories which have been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, as Seuss mentions.
Quote:
it is political censorship, and it has been observed to be practiced by people with certain political preferences, goals, or alliances. It is a political conspiracy in itself.
How?
You can post in the conspiracy forum about this crap. The division of forums per topic is helpful and does not prevent a poster from expressing their views.
Quote:
Furthermore, it is extremely asinine and ignorant to suggest or assume that political conspiracies never happen, and are not fit topics for political discussion.
The misunderstanding of all of these word definitions and points I have brought up in this post and the last, are also pertinent to the political process, and the vulgar, slanderous terms are in fact being perpetuated for political reasons.
More semantic arguments? 
Who said conspiracies were excluded from this forum or that they don't happen? As has been stated previously: conspiracy theory is a specific term whose definition is independent of its constituent terms. Maybe they should be called something else, but your attempt to insist on some etymological fidelity is contrary to the way language is used and would hinder discussion.
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said:
Arguing semantics proves nothing other than you like to have arguments about semantics.
Yep, and I agree with your points. These semantic games are pointless: the term conspiracy theory is reasonably well understood, and that idea is not at all the summation of the concepts of a scientific theory and a legal conspiracy. I don't see why people think these semantic games are helpful.
I anticipate his next objection will be the use of "parkway" to refer to a place where one drives and a "driveway" to refer to a place where one parks.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said: How about the real definition of a "conspiracy theory" instead of trying to use to definitions of two separate words to justify your belief of what one is
Are you seriously trying to tell me that "conspiracy theory" is one word? See what's i'm saying about lack of respect for or knowledge of literacy?
Quote:
conspiracy theory — n the belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied
So you chose the worst, most vulgar definition you could find? how about this one that i found right above the one you quoted on the same page:
Quote:
conspiracy theory n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy+theory
Your definition is improper, I hate to rail on the literacy train but you should know that your definition completely disregards the "theory" element of the word(s) and falsely replaces it with "belief."
There is a literary reason why it is written "conspiracy theory" and not "conspiracy belief"
Quote:
It is a belief, not a factual thing. Any random idea put forth that contains a conspiracy element is considered a conspiracy theory whether or not there is any evidence to support it.
No it is not. My whole point is that this notion is perpetuated by illiterate, un-scientific people, and people involved in the actual conspiracies. There is a clear distinction between the definitions of "belief" and "theory."
"belief" is closer to a hypothesis.
Quote:
"Don't attempt to push the meaning of a "scientific theory" onto the term "conspiracy theory".
"don't attempt to push science" - OKAY i'll live in ignorance instead.
Quote:
A "scientific theory" has to have a large body of evidence for it to be considered a scientific theory, a conspiracy theory does not need a large body of evidence for it to qualify as a conspiracy theory.
Dude, the definition of theory does not change just because you put "conspiracy" in front of it, again with the literacy.
My point was that calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is actually not a negative term, it implies that they have investigated the matter, repeatedly tested it, and created an opinion based on the evidence.
The fact that people falsely use the term the way they do shows their lack of respect and knowledge for literacy and science, again that's my whole point, and it shows the way they falsely arrive at their opinions.
Quote:
Arguing semantics proves nothing other than you like to have arguments about semantics.
Semantics is the science of linguistics or literacy. Again, your lack of respect for semantics suggests that you have no respect for science or literacy.
Science is all about semantics.
Arguing semantics as i have helps prove who cares about science and literacy and who does not, which has implications to the way they arrive at their political opinions.
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores




Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,788
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Shins]
#14755713 - 07/12/11 07:57 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said: Are you seriously trying to tell me that "conspiracy theory" is one word? See what's i'm saying about lack of respect for or knowledge of literacy?
Maybe some circular logic will help you understand. The term, conspiracy theory, is a term.
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said: Don't attempt to push the meaning of a "scientific theory" onto the term "conspiracy theory".
Who is the illiterate one now? Did you not read what I wrote? I called it a term in my original post. 
Quote:
Term (language) or terminology, a noun or compound word used in a specific context meaning - Wikipedia
You should read up on context before you spout off about literacy.
Quote:
Shins said: Dude, the definition of theory does not change just because you put "conspiracy" in front of it, again with the literacy.
Yes, it does. You are saying that philosophical theories and scientific theories use the same criteria to define the "theory" part of the terms? If the word before theory does nothing to change the context and meaning of the word theory then why are they added at all?
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said: Maybe some circular logic will help you understand. The term, conspiracy theory, is a term.
I agree, however, as a derogatory term is is vulgar or slang.
Slang:
Quote:
–noun 1. very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more metaphorical, playful, elliptical, vivid, and ephemeral than ordinary language, as Hit the road. 2. (in English and some other languages) speech and writing characterized by the use of vulgar and socially taboo vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. 3. the jargon of a particular class, profession, etc. EXPAND 4. the special vocabulary of thieves, vagabonds, etc.; argot. COLLAPSE –verb (used without object) 5. to use slang or abusive language. –verb (used with object) 6. to assail with abusive language.
Link
My point again is that people perpetuating this slang term, suggest that they take a ``slang`` approach to investigation as well.
Quote:
[BlimeyGrimey said: Who is the illiterate one now? Did you not read what I wrote? I called it a term in my original post. 
You also called it a word first...
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said:How about the real definition of a "conspiracy theory" instead of trying to use to definitions of two separate words to justify your belief of what one is.
Look i wasn`t directly calling you illiterate, i was careful to say ``ìf`` and ``then``
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said:Quote:
Term (language) or terminology, a noun or compound word used in a specific context meaning - Wikipedia
You should read up on context before you spout off about literacy.
Your context started out by referring to `conspiracy theory as one word.
Quote:
Quote:
Shins said: Dude, the definition of theory does not change just because you put "conspiracy" in front of it, again with the literacy.
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said:Yes, it does. You are saying that philosophical theories and scientific theories use the same criteria to define the "theory" part of the terms? If the word before theory does nothing to change the context and meaning of the word theory then why are they added at all?
Adjectives further describe a noun, they do not change the definition, they add to it.
Yes philosophic theories are derived by repeated testing and evidence, that`s why they are called theories and not beliefs or hypotheses.
To stay on topic i want to reiterate that there is no evidence of Osama`s death, there is only fallacy.
Edited by Shins (07/12/11 08:34 AM)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 19 days
|
Re: Bin Laden [Re: mister]
#14755823 - 07/12/11 08:26 AM (12 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
This thread has been closed.
Reason: This thread had died a natural death weeks ago. If bumping it it had resulted in new discussion on, say, the repercussions to geopolitics of bin Laden's death rather than the usual conspiracy theorist rhetoric, it might have made sense to leave it open.
As it is, however...
*click
|
|