There will be widescale rioting after Zimmerman verdict. Debunk, please

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
But why are you here then? It's like going to a forum devoted to Doctor Who and insisting on talking about how cool Star Trek is. What are you trying to achieve? Saving those who aren't brainwashed yet by our evil cult?

Just because something isn't known you seem to think that proves the lack of the material investigative approach - it doesn't, it's just not known. Big deal. Maybe it will be known, maybe we can never know, it doesn't mean all alternative theories are somehow validated by the fact that science doesn't have an answer.
It's possible not to know something and not have existential anxiety because of it. Zen mind beginners mind.
"This is seen as a given in the box, but the truth of the matter is you don't even know what consciousness is or why it is there in the first place. And absolutely nothing in your model explains why we even have it in the first place."


Yeah, but so? If you have to make up stories that provide neat explanations for everything then go ahead, it's what humans do best and have done since the human race existed. Doesn't make any of them true.

And consciousness has to be material because only material can act on material. If consciousness were not material how could it affect us? There, done. :p (I kid)

"That is what the war is about, keeping God out of the game."

So therefore your war is about keeping god in the game? Why? It's a completely different game to the one being played here.

There is a 'meta-debunking' part to the forum where this sort of discussion might be more applicable, as it doesn't seem to be about specific events or facts but 'meta' approaches to knowing reality.
It (your spiel) does seem to be coming from a fundamentally mutually exclusive place to the one openly being practised here, so again, why would you be here if you disagree so much?
"Folks have been dumping the evidential dirt on this zombie for a couple of hundred years. You could fill a small library with the books that have repeatedly shown it doesn't hold up to even its own standards of evidence. It is not at all supported by the only standard you recognize as valid in all cases--science and reason. That howling irony has been pointed out over and over, but instead of defending against the charge by proving your case, that killshot is routinely breezed by and it's back to the invasion of the Is not/Prove It bots."


Could you make a clear thread showing clearly what exact howling irony has been pointed out over and over because, sorry, but it still eludes me.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Sorry, one thing is bothering me. You say -
It has taken an extreme amount of work over many years and it only has been possible to make what progress I have made by jettisoning ALL preconceived notions.
I took all the pieces and swept them off the board and started from scratch to see which ones could return to the board shorn of the false supports of dogma and ideology. I have had my beliefs burned to ashes and have had my ground of being vanish under my feet. It is painful and it is not for the meek.
This is what the process of scientific investigation is. It is also the work of spiritual self-inquiry, such as taught by Jed Mckenna or U.G. Krishnamurti (the anti-krishnamurti). Finding one thing which is true. Throw out all that cannot be confirmed. No belief is true.
Yet all you seem to be arguing for is beliefs and narratives over tangibly existing truths.

So we might have different definitions of what this process means, or we just might both be talking about something different.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Basing conclusions on material facts doesn't seem like a useful heuristic for knowing reality? What is then?

It's useful for studying "the base" or physical substrate. It's not necessarily as useful when it comes to consciousness, the "signalling" of group dynamics, works of art, symbolism or "conspiracies." I.e. basically anything that has to do with the existence of metaphysical information and sentience.

Think about it this way, you can take a book and burn it. Have you changed the fact that from a conscious perspective it once held artifacts of consciousness and symbolism and so forth? What series of physical and chemical tests would you run on the book in order to try to fit the conscious information that it held into a test tube in theory, while in fact you were merely burning and incinerating all of its symbolism with your tests?

If you're going to study conspiracy theories, works of art, symbolism and so forth then trying to put them in a "box of materialism" is not only not the useful heuristic it could be in some specific cases, it's utterly destructive. One might imagine it as burning books, instead of trying to read them. Or perhaps it could be imagined as debunking conspiracy theories, instead of trying to come up with better theories with respect to the reality that organisms and people do conspire. Etc.


What you have is a scientistic view, science as a kind of religion. Jacques Monod is an arch-priest of this, or arch-prophet, but there are quite a lot of others in the same way in other movements like sociobiology denying anything human, value-systems which animals don’t have. The situation I regard as quite serious, and I don’t think that in the seminaries training Protestant and Catholic clergymen, I don’t think they are really training them properly to face the modern world, to go out into a world where the average man in the street says that science has disproved religion. This is what you’re up against. I think it is very important indeed to be examining the whole mental outlook, from time to time, that is governing our lives and that is developing into the future. I hope very much that we are recovering from the long deep depression of materialistic monism which has spread over the intellectual world like a dark fog blanketing out all of the brightness and illumination of the ideals and imaginations of human beings. I hope very much that we can be restored to some sanity in relationship to the mystery of existence and become more and more freed from this domination by the dogmatic assertions of materialists that can only lead to despair and nihilism.
--John Eccles
(The Intellectuals Speak Out About God
Edited by Roy Abraham Varghese :47-48)
If the intellectual or philosophical ground isn't cleared to allow people to think about anything touching on consciousness, symbolism, works of art and so forth then we're never going to get anywhere. That's the mentality of burning books or merely rejecting the "existence" of symbolism/"religions" within the physical substrate as a reality that exists and actually impacts it. Same thing with secret societies that exist and use symbolism, which impacts "the base." Etc.

This has to be cleared away if we are to have better, less wild eyed conspiracy theories and perhaps a few less ludicrous coincidence theories and wide eyed gullibility with respect to them too.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
This is what your posts read like.

Concerned with framing everything in terms of the rabble and babble, that's what your own posts read like. Why are you interested in imagining things like that instead of beginning to try to make sense of things in some way? Even if a text was supposedly chaotic and so forth... why not try to come up with an actual theory as to why that is supposedly so from your perspective instead of just observing that it is so from your perspective?

Perhaps imagine one side of his neural nets misfiring in chaotic ways, so that he's like a half-wit and so forth. Or there's always pareidolia. Speaking of being half-witted, imagine if a "group mind" of the synaptic gaps needs individuals to play the part of the Left or the Right in order for people to produce symbolism, music and works of art within it based on patterns. An imaginary illustration:

In any event (or imaginary series of events extending into the past), sometimes it almost seems like a lot of people that one might imagine on a right hand path are not the tribe of half-wits composed of blind and ignorant "mechanisms" that they keep trying to make themselves out to be.

But if at first you don't succeed then try, try again... right?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Concerned with framing everything in terms of the rabble and babble, that's what your own posts read like. Why are you interested in imagining things like that instead of beginning to try to make sense of things in some way? Even if a text was supposedly chaotic and so forth... why not try to come up with an actual theory as to why that is supposedly so from your perspective instead of just observing that it is so from your perspective?

I've said it before. I don't care enough about this topic. I don't want to come up with a theory on this topic. I don't have to come up with a theory on this topic. Therefore I am not going to come up with a theory on this topic.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Interesting:
(JW) Judicial Watchannounced today that it has obtained documents in response to local, state, and federal records requests revealing that a little-known unit of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Community Relations Service (CRS), was deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman. [...]
On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinelreported, “They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,” after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents. [...]
“These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.” (Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Detail Role of Justice Department in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests)

Hopefully they won't be involved in organizing protests if the verdict doesn't go their way now. Not that they're always consciously and intellectually conspiring... but they probably have even more of a government hive mind thing going now that they've invested money in it. Something along these lines: "We're paid the big bucks to conspire behind the scenes." As one of the co-conspirators put it.

Same thing with the "conspiracies" to cover up 911, it just happens... like excrement:
“If you think this is bad,” Amin replied, “then you haven’t seen anything. This is nothing compared to some other cover-ups that had direct bearing on what happened here on September eleven!” “Do you mean other nine eleven cases have been similarly destroyed, covered up?” “I am saying that and ten times worse,” he avowed. “Yours won’t begin to measure up to what we have seen this agency cover up.” He turned to Sarshar. “Do you want to tell her about our case or do you want me to?” Sarshar got up and grabbed a file from his desk drawer, then came back and sat down. “Sit tight. What you will hear and see will blow your mind.” (Classified Woman-The Sibel Edmonds Story: A Memoir Edmonds, Sibel D (2012-04-25))
Worth a mention, so that anyone interested in becoming a conspiracy theorist will know about some of the precedents and begin to be able to create better conspiracy theories instead of writing all conspiracy theories off as the work of... CTs or CT based groups. (When the government arrests someone for allegedly being a co-conspirator, does that make the government itself a CT group? Or is that label about different groups/tribes?)
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I've said it before. I don't care enough about this topic. I don't want to come up with a theory on this topic. I don't have to come up with a theory on this topic. Therefore I am not going to come up with a theory on this topic.
Then perhaps you should consider just dropping the topic. When you post in a thread, one presumes you're participating in the dialogue.

I see, so now we're debunking events that have not happened that may not happen. If they don't happen does the debate go on?
Whether or not riots occur, the conspiracy theory being suggested, as stated before, is that the storm of hype and outrage surrounding the Zimmerman case/trial is being knowingly fueled and encouraged by the media and some authorities, with the intention of inciting riot behavior. The evidence for this scenario, whether you consider that evidence of any value or not, is readily available within both the media coverage of the Zimmerman case/trial in the many months since it all began until now, and the treatment/statements by authorities in the many months since it all began until now. Why is this a case of such national notice and outrage? Surely it's an outrageous case, but how many young black men are shot by older white men in America every year, and vice versa? There was a shitstorm of polarizing coverage around this one case, putting such emphasis from the very beginning on how there happened to be a new and somewhat ludicrous law facilitating the shooting, basically declaring, before the guy was even done being processed and long before there was any court-date set, that the he was probably going to get away with it. Whether it's as simple as the media being as callous and douchey as we can expect from the media these days, eagerly exploiting hate and contention for the extra ratings, or as complex as a small part of a much grander scheme to keep America's growing poor and shrinking middle-class at each-others throats over racial divides, there are implications of a conspiracy to 'rabble-rouse' people toward violence over the outcome of this case.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Interesting:
Hopefully they won't be involved in organizing protests if the verdict doesn't go their way now. Not that they're always consciously and intellectually conspiring... but they probably have even more of a government hive mind thing going now that they've invested money in it. Something along these lines: "We're paid the big bucks to conspire behind the scenes." As one of the co-conspirators put it.


The spin on this by you and JW is pretty thick...all they have is approximately $5000 in travel vouchers...they neglect to mention that the CRS was requested by the city of Sanford...and that their stated goal was to "provide technical assistance, conciliation and onsite mediation during planned demonstrations. The city of Sanford requested CRS..."

They didn't organize or plan ANY protests- they protests were already planned by community members - they were there to- in the words of a local CRS program officer:

Your disingenuous paraphrasing of Miami-Dade County Community Relations Board Program Officer Amy Carswell's comment is telling in its intent....this is the full exchange:

Being a program officer for a community relations board- an employee of Miami-Dade county- Ms. Carswell was no doubt being a tad sarcastic with her "big bucks" comment.

http://www.miamidade.gov/advocacy/CRB_board_members.asp

You seem to leap to nefarious intent at the mention of any Federal involvement- what exactly have you against trying to "reduce tensions and build bridges of understanding and respect" ?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
You seem to leap to nefarious intent at the mention of any Federal involvement...

Maybe. If so I made a mistake. Because usually no one has nefarious* intents and it's likely that Ms. Carswell is a true blue believer. Or that she plays the part... or at least thinks she does. She's probably trying to save those poor black kids and so forth. But, is it working?

I guess we'll see if the federal government is successful in doing "lots of stuff" or "lots more stuff" behind the scenes to make Miami even more of a success than it already is. At least they already had some drills to keep people safe there if things where to get really bad, huh? It might be interesting to check if there are any more drills scheduled there. Maybe more drills in order to: "...provide technical assistance, conciliation and onsite mediation..." and so forth, depending on how much is necessary.

At least Joe theorized and specified: "There will be wide scale rioting." Although I wouldn't be surprised if there may be a lot of wiggle room in "wide scale" if there aren't many, in retrospect. That's the way theorizing usually is.

"reduce tensions and build bridges of understanding and respect"

It looks like everyone involved has been doing a good job of that so far, huh? I'm not sure if they helped the situation, mainly because it's up to local people to build bridges and mediate things with each other and so forth and not the Feds or military industrial media inc.

But at least there has been a trial now thanks partly to the interplay of true blue believers like Carswell and the locals. Just my opinion that's a good thing. I suppose from some perspectives shooting and killing a person without any "mediation" might be fine, sort of like assassinating 16 year old Muslim kids without trial in the name of self-defense.

*I sometimes wonder about this. Who in the military industrial complex and the corporate media does have nefarious intents... and how would we know if they did? Surely there must be some that actually do have nefarious intents. Or are they all saints and bumbling fools?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Then perhaps you should consider just dropping the topic. When you post in a thread, one presumes you're participating in the dialogue.


Whether or not riots occur, the conspiracy theory being suggested, as stated before, is that the storm of hype and outrage surrounding the Zimmerman case/trial is being knowingly fueled and encouraged by the media and some authorities, with the intention of inciting riot behavior. The evidence for this scenario, whether you consider that evidence of any value or not, is readily available within both the media coverage of the Zimmerman case/trial in the many months since it all began until now, and the treatment/statements by authorities in the many months since it all began until now. Why is this a case of such national notice and outrage? Surely it's an outrageous case, but how many young black men are shot by older white men in America every year, and vice versa? There was a shitstorm of polarizing coverage around this one case, putting such emphasis from the very beginning on how there happened to be a new and somewhat ludicrous law facilitating the shooting, basically declaring, before the guy was even done being processed and long before there was any court-date set, that the he was probably going to get away with it. Whether it's as simple as the media being as callous and douchey as we can expect from the media these days, eagerly exploiting hate and contention for the extra ratings, or as complex as a small part of a much grander scheme to keep America's growing poor and shrinking middle-class at each-others throats over racial divides, there are implications of a conspiracy to 'rabble-rouse' people toward violence over the outcome of this case.

Grieves, that was awesome. Just damn well played, sir. All I can add is that the reason is the way it is has much to do with the grander scheme you mention re the growing poor and shrinking middle class fight. It's textbook Machiavelli.

Just because they don't teach his stuff in the public schools doesn't mean his stuff isn't taught at all school. Some throwbacks actually eagerly study his work and actively champion his cause. But he's a old dead white guy, and who has the time for such atavistic slop when diversity is the order of the day, right. That old fashion stuff doesn't apply to our postmodern world, right?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Sorry, one thing is bothering me. You say -

This is what the process of scientific investigation is. It is also the work of spiritual self-inquiry, such as taught by Jed Mckenna or U.G. Krishnamurti (the anti-krishnamurti). Finding one thing which is true. Throw out all that cannot be confirmed. No belief is true.

I'm down with this all the way. That's exactly what I am doing and calling for others to do as well. I am throwing out all that cannot be confirmed.

Yet all you seem to be arguing for is beliefs and narratives over tangibly existing truths.

To the contrary, I am arguing directly and emphatically that you guys need to stop with the beliefs about your narrative. It doesn't hold up. It cannot be confirmed by the very tools it puts forth as the only valid ones for any job when it comes to establishing the truth--reason and evidence.

It's the ABG problem at its core. Take that history out and start from the scratch sans ideology and go investigate the evidence without preconception and build a model based only upon what you can actually verify from the available evidence.

I don't know what you will come up with. But I know down to my toenails what you will NOT wind up with: the materialist model.

So we might have different definitions of what this process means, or we just might both be talking about something different.

We may. I'm talking about using the tools of science to validate the data disclosed based upon reason and logic sans an a priori stance carved in stone. When the data differs from the model, adjust the model, don't adjust, distort, or dismiss the data because it doesn't fit the model.

Follow the evidence, don't demand the evidence follow you based on a model that is an expedient wedge to further political and social agendas.[/quote]
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
....

Follow the evidence, don't demand the evidence follow you based on a model that is an expedient wedge to further political and social agendas.

It's this 'agenda-ing' that I don't see happening, but you do.
What are you basing this belief on?
If reality happens to line up with a mainstream political position, it could be a coincidence, or the political agenda may have just enough truth in it to maintain its credibility - but either way, reality is not concerned whether it conforms to some minuscule lifeform's agenda or not.
To prove this you will have to show that reality is being ignored in some way.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
But why are you here then? It's like going to a forum devoted to Doctor Who and insisting on talking about how cool Star Trek is. What are you trying to achieve? Saving those who aren't brainwashed yet by our evil cult?

I landed here via a blind link. It wasn't intentional. I saw the topics, I saw the bit about how to argue people's points instead of attacking them, and figured what if this is real? That sounded like a dream too good to be true. And it was. Oddly though, for all the chimp shit tossed my way by some, it looks like my stupid off topic rambles are actually sprouting some seeds of some folks actually exploring stuff. I call that progress. ;)

Just because something isn't known you seem to think that proves the lack of the material investigative approach - it doesn't, it's just not known. Big deal. Maybe it will be known, maybe we can never know, it doesn't mean all alternative theories are somehow validated by the fact that science doesn't have an answer.

I don't think that way at all. Don't assign that to me, please.

The problem isn't solved by promissary materialism. That's just "take it on faith" one level up. All the faith based stuff about "one day we will know" isn't going to dig materialism out of the dogmatic ditch it's fallen into.

It's possible not to know something and not have existential anxiety because of it. Zen mind beginners mind.

Heh. Again, you prove my point when you think you have debunked it. That's ironic, eh? Pete, beginners mind is what I am using. It's the flapdoodle passed off as knowing that is the reason why beginner's mind is prized as it is, Suzuki san.

Yeah, but so? If you have to make up stories that provide neat explanations for everything then go ahead, it's what humans do best and have done since the human race existed. Doesn't make any of them true.

No, it doesn't make them true. My. Point. Precisely. So take your own advice and stop making up stories or stop believing the one's you've been told. You guys whack the fundie moles relentlessly on this point, but you don't see that you just replaced the stories with a new story.

In a nutshell, this is how it is. The materialist pov is like the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's there, surely, but it's not all that is there. That's not a problem. Insisting there's no other part of the spectrum is a problem.

And consciousness has to be material because only material can act on material. If consciousness were not material how could it affect us? There, done. :p (I kid)

You may kid, but I assure you, had you not pointed that out, I know plenty of folks who would have agreed vigorously. It's vapid statement based on dogma, not science, it isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet its credo.

So therefore your war is about keeping god in the game? Why? It's a completely different game to the one being played here.

Not quite. It's not my war, and nobody ever took God out of the game. The game goes on outside the box unencumbered by the credo inside the box.

It (your spiel) does seem to be coming from a fundamentally , so again, why would you be here if you disagree so much?

I am here because I agree fully with your statement. My spiel is coming from a fundamentally mutually exclusive place to the one openly being practised here. And that's precisely why I'm here. To point that out.

The reason I seem so out of place is that my approach is indeed not practiced here openly or otherwise. It should be. It's the top of that pyramid, the "do this" part. The practice I see openly strewn over this place is the bottom of the pyramid, the "don't do this" part.


Could you make a clear thread showing clearly what exact howling irony has been pointed out over and over because, sorry, but it still eludes me.

Ok. The irony is that it is assumed that reason and science drove this claim, when as you will see once anyone tries to actually build a case for it from the ground up, it doesn't fly. You have to add all kinds of ungrounded assumptions to it just to prop it up. Even science can't get this one off the ground.

Here's the foundational claim of the materialist model by Carl Sagan, via Richard Lewontin:

"We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities."

That's the materialist creed. Can anyone support this without resorting to arguments from authority or papering it over with assumptions? I don't accept them. What is the evidence for this claim being true? What is the reasoning behind this being true based upon that evidence?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
It's this 'agenda-ing' that I don't see happening, but you do.
What are you basing this belief on?
If reality happens to line up with a mainstream political position, it could be a coincidence, or the political agenda may have just enough truth in it to maintain its credibility - but either way, reality is not concerned whether it conforms to some minuscule lifeform's agenda or not.
To prove this you will have to show that reality is being ignored in some way.

I don't anyone beyond your camp who subscribes to it, not the premodern worldview, nor the postmodern world view subscribe to the model. They both think you have driven the train off the tracks. Unless they are squabbling with you guys, they go about their business ignoring the validity of your claims. Truth to tell, had you not gotten your paws around the power that comes with it, they would happily let you believe whatever you want. Unlike you, they don't see reality lining up with your claim at all. I don't either.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...Unlike you, they don't see reality lining up with your claim at all. I don't either.
Not sure what my claim is - materialism? Reality, ie, the observed world, does line up with objects and motions acting within a framework of relatively known physics.
Are you talking about experienced reality, ie, qualia, emotions, psychology, subjectivity?
Because interchanging the two is a category error. Tools that work in one area aren't applicable in another.

And consciousness has to be material because only material can act on material. If consciousness were not material how could it affect us? There, done. :p (I kid)​

You may kid, but I assure you, had you not pointed that out, I know plenty of folks who would have agreed vigorously. It's vapid statement based on dogma, not science, it isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet its credo.

I actually can't see this vapidity. If non-material things exist, they are cut off from any interaction with the physical world, including every end of the electro-magnetic spectrum, unless they take on material properties. Therefore they would be material.

All I feel is a lot of projection against the perceived position here - I don't feel it's correct, but I don't necessarily get why a materialist position is a problem in this area - it seems to be the correct one.
It is wholly likely my mind is not sharp enough to dissect and understand properly the essence of your position, so I guess you should point it out (the perception problem as you see it) as and when it arises, and maybe it'll eventually become clear.
But short sharp descriptions please.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Not sure what my claim is - materialism?

Yes. It's the box you claimed it to be. The rest is just the type of waffling I told you would take place. Stop asking me questions and back your house claim. You say it "seems correct." It isn't. If you don't know any of the arguments against it, how can you assume this is the case?

What exactly is a material thing, Pete? Be complete and precise in your definition, because anything else you say is based on it.

You signed up for the box and it is defining the limits of your worldview whether you are aware of it or not. Everybody else in the world but those in the box itself deny the validity of it's foundational claim, yet you guys have the power, so it's not a side issue. We all say you are wrong. You say you are not.

Defend the validity of your home team stance or admit it's a power grab and be honest about it. That way everyone will agree the same thing and we can all get along? ;)
 
J

Joe

Guest
I'm sure there will be some commotion when Zimmy is found not guilty. But It'll most likely be a handful of minor isolated incidences, but the right wing media will most likely blow it way out of proportion.

The left wing media has been fanning the flames since the beginning . Including Obama if I had a son comment ? yet hundreds are killed in chicago every month yet none of those could have looked like Obama if he had a son . the whole trial has been pushed by the DOJ and they are responsible for any thing that happens . Blood will be on their hands .
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Yes. It's the box you claimed it to be. The rest is just the type of waffling I told you would take place. Stop asking me questions and back your house claim. You say it "seems correct." It isn't. If you don't know any of the arguments against it, how can you assume this is the case?

What exactly is a material thing, Pete? Be complete and precise in your definition, because anything else you say is based on it.

You signed up for the box and it is defining the limits of your worldview whether you are aware of it or not. Everybody else in the world but those in the box itself deny the validity of it's foundational claim, yet you guys have the power, so it's not a side issue. We all say you are wrong. You say you are not.

Defend the validity of your home team stance or admit it's a power grab and be honest about it. That way everyone will agree the same thing and we can all get along? ;)

I know less what you're talking about now than I did a post ago. Power grab? I don't see it, so why would I admit to it? Everybody else but those in the box deny the validity of the claim? Who? What do they say instead?

How is it not correct? How can I know the arguments against it if you don't tell me?

Not knowing the arguments for or against something doesn't preclude coming to the right conclusion in ignorance of the complexity of debate on the subject.
If it 'seems to be correct', why is the truth not self-evident but the opposite of what it 'seems to be'?
How would one come to that knowledge if it goes against all that seems to be? One would have to learn it from someone. Therefore it is dogma and not truth.

A material thing is something that has atoms, organised into various density and structures, which can affect us or be perceived by us. Also any 'thing' is more or less a temporary designation that has relative meaning in context to ourselves and our language.
It's all we can know. Otherwise how is it made known to us? On whose authority if not our own?

edit...
In all your posts, you have not explained *why or how* the materialist box is wrong, or provided even a simple alternative that you believe is the appropriate 'box' to be debunking from.
So if debunking the idea the moon landing is a hoax by using a materialist examination of what is physically possible, cause and effect, and mathematics, is inappropriate, then what is the appropriate and superior method?
What is the appropriate non-materialist way to debunk the claims of an innovation that produces more energy than it takes to make it, if not to examine the materialist properties of it?
What place does the question of 'denying God' have in debating at what temperature steel weakens?
Debunking happens because someone makes a claim about material reality, something that *happened*. Things *happen* according to cause and effect in objective, materialist reality. Therefore it is the correct tool to use to judge their validity.

And you have not explained how something non-material can have any material effect, just accused me of vapid waffle.
You have not made one single tangible assertion yet.
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
The left wing media has been fanning the flames since the beginning . Including Obama if I had a son comment ? yet hundreds are killed in chicago every month yet none of those could have looked like Obama if he had a son . the whole trial has been pushed by the DOJ and they are responsible for any thing that happens . Blood will be on their hands .


Other than that comment Obama has actually done an excellent job of staying out of it. But as Mick said earlier, this trail started because of Stand Your Ground and that fact that he wasn't being charged pending an investigation. The media on both sides twisted it into what it is now.

I personally don't think Zimmerman is innocent, but as far as I can see; there is no hard proof that he's not due to conflicting eyewitness accounts. All I wanted was an investigation and a fair trail for Zimmerman guilty or not.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Grieves, that was awesome. Just damn well played, sir. All I can add is that the reason is the way it is has much to do with the grander scheme you mention re the growing poor and shrinking middle class fight. It's textbook Machiavelli.

Just because they don't teach his stuff in the public schools doesn't mean his stuff isn't taught at all school. Some throwbacks actually eagerly study his work and actively champion his cause. But he's a old dead white guy, and who has the time for such atavistic slop when diversity is the order of the day, right. That old fashion stuff doesn't apply to our postmodern world, right?

Well, of course it does. Nothing is new. Anyone who's properly examined these things understands that well enough. Just because there's this place, where denialism reigns, it doesn't change that reality - insofar as any 'reality' is 'valid' (it's all subjective, all of it - there is no such thing as 'objective', when you boil it down - or, dare I say, reduce it. We are all individual units of consciousness making a whole, taking our own 'measurements', subjectively, through our very limited senses). People(s) have always been manipulated for the ends of others, collectively and individually - and easily, too - by the information they receive, by the information they are allowed. Forget historical context on that for a moment (history being the very lowest form of truth) and look at the current - here we are, after one hundred plus years of the study of human psychology, all the known buttons are pressable - and so they are pressed. Pressed into the service of the status quo.
There is such a lack in the evolution of some people's thought processes (or relatively unexpanded consciousness, again, both collective and individual), that it's even considered some kind of 'revelation' that 'societies' are atomised by those who control and wish to continue to control; that they are broken down into competing groups with falsely created isms and schisms is anathema to the under developed consciousness - the dissonance arising from such ideas is far too uncomfortable to confront. Really, it's a simple rule of thumb - and everyone's heard of it - Divide and Rule.
More directly in relation to the topic, it does appear that the establishment is encouraging rioting. Either that or they haven't done their psychology homework, which seems unlikely. As stated, most people don't need to be encouraged not to riot. Others will see such requests as a clarion call to riot, still others will join in once the party starts, carried along by the frisson of excitement and danger....the two videos I posted up the board are two different examples - one was a riot borne on fury over unjust taxation and it had the effect of changing the regime's policy; the other was triggered by the deliberate execution of a man by police to incite violence and was set against the backdrop of proposed massive cuts to the police 'service' in the UK. No prizes for guessing the motivation for the manipulation of the situation to further socio-political ends. So there are 'good' riots and 'bad' ones. A shame that we couldn't manipulate the 2 million that marched n London against the impending Iraq war (not for want of trying, I can assure you) - if a significant portion of that crowd had engaged in serious 'civil disobedience', then that country might not have been destroyed. But the manipulators of 'the other side' won the day, because people were not prepared to answer the call and preferred to wave their middle class banners saying 'not in my name', instead of hitting a policeman with it. Anyone turning their nose up at violence in that context should consider a visit to Iraq - and some context on the extreme violence perpetrated on an entire country.

So, my reading is that it appears there is some incitement going on (by very simple psychology), manipulation-a-go-go (or, business-as-usual), but to what end? Just part of the ongoing program of atomisation? A desire to test out some of the latest riot control hardware - sound cannons, microwave cannon etc? A straw poll on numbers for when the shit really hits the fan and USAmericans get out on the streets in armed mass? To identify ringleaders/'radicals'? Or simply to create a bit of chaos - so order can be restored? We can probably be most sure of one thing - whatever happens (or not), we'll never know the answer. And neither does it matter.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
It's this 'agenda-ing' that I don't see happening, but you do.
What are you basing this belief on?
If reality happens to line up with a mainstream political position, it could be a coincidence, or the political agenda may have just enough truth in it to maintain its credibility - but either way, reality is not concerned whether it conforms to some minuscule lifeform's agenda or not.
To prove this you will have to show that reality is being ignored in some way.

In the immortal words of the great philosopher, John McEnroe:

You cannot be serious!

Don't see any agenda? That's a staggering admission. Ok, how's this for an example -

CIA Document 1035-960 : Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report



There's always an agenda, P. Perception management for all! Oh and freedom and democracy, too.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Other than that comment Obama has actually done an excellent job of staying out of it. But as Mick said earlier, this trail started because of Stand Your Ground and that fact that he wasn't being charged pending an investigation. The media on both sides twisted it into what it is now.

I personally don't think Zimmerman is innocent, but as far as I can see; there is no hard proof that he's not due to conflicting eyewitness accounts. All I wanted was an investigation and a fair trail for Zimmerman guilty or not.

Like the beer summit ? No he sticks his nose into things a President shouldnt involve themselves . Made it political from the start . Thier wasnt enough eveidence to charge him at all . only because losers such as Al Sharpton showed up and made things worse . I know the family wanted answers and I dont blame them at all . They were used by the media . Then MSNBC airs a photo for a second of Trayvon Dead on the ground for the world too see . On purpose ! When did you give up on conspiracies anyway ? Right after Obama took office ?
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
Thier wasnt enough eveidence to charge him at all . only because losers such as Al Sharpton showed up and made things worse . I know the family wanted answers and I dont blame them at all . They were used by the media . Then MSNBC airs a photo for a second of Trayvon Dead on the ground for the world too see . On purpose !

So you don't think that a killing should be investigated?

So you don't think that a killing should be investigated? That's what I wanted, and investigation and a fair trial. To just let a man walk without a trial or investigation because of stand your ground is lunacy.
When did you give up on conspiracies anyway ? Right after Obama took office ?
Read my post in out of the rabbit hole if you want an answer to that.
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
What does that have to do with Travon Martin and the so called rioting that's going to begin?

Big cities have lots of crime. This is news?
 
J

Joe

Guest
So you don't think that a killing should be investigated?

So you don't think that a killing should be investigated? That's what I wanted, and investigation and a fair trial. To just let a man walk without a trial or investigation because of stand your ground is lunacy.

Read my post in out of the rabbit hole if you want an answer to that.

No I think it should have been investigated but most usually dont of even get solved . If I were Zimmerman Id probably kill myself than have to live with that for the rest of my life . Even if he was justified . It also was used for the Gun control Issue . Never let a crisis go to waste .
 
J

Joe

Guest
What does that have to do with Travon Martin and the so called rioting that's going to begin?

Big cities have lots of crime. This is news?

Wondering why its was ignored by the media yet this trial is a big deal ? Divide an Conquer .
 
J

Joe

Guest
What does that have to do with Travon Martin and the so called rioting that's going to begin?

Big cities have lots of crime. This is news?

I really dont think there will be riots . Americans get too much free stuff as it is , why steal and take the chance or getting killed ? Too Lazy To Riot .
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Well, of course it does. Nothing is new. Anyone who's properly examined these things understands that well enough. Just because there's this place, where denialism reigns, it doesn't change that reality - insofar as any 'reality' is 'valid' (it's all subjective, all of it - there is no such thing as 'objective', when you boil it down - or, dare I say, reduce it. We are all individual units of consciousness making a whole, taking our own 'measurements', subjectively, through our very limited senses). People(s) have always been manipulated for the ends of others, collectively and individually - and easily, too - by the information they receive, by the information they are allowed. Forget historical context on that for a moment (history being the very lowest form of truth) and look at the current - here we are, after one hundred plus years of the study of human psychology, all the known buttons are pressable - and so they are pressed. Pressed into the service of the status quo.

Sigh. Here's irony for you, in that "be careful what you ask for" way. Here I am yammering about nobody digging into stuff beyond the surface, and now that it is happening, I can't keep up with it all and don't have time to dig in. Sheesh.

Lots of great stuff to dig into in this whole post, lone gunman, er, LHO. I wish I could go though it (and mynym's as well, because you guys are putting up stuff deserving thoughtful replies. I won't be able to do that, so I will have to just say I wish I could because you both have lots of interesting stuff rolling through your posts. I don't agree with all of it, but I learn from all of it. I doubt much, but one thing I do know. I would love to do some serious elbow tipping of Prague's finest pilsners with both of ya.

Cheers, mates. Remember to tap your glass on the table first before you drink to the toast. Praha rules. Trust me when I tell ya that not knowing tiny bits of information can radically alter a situation without your even knowing what happened. That fact is lost on many, sure, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you guys that.) ;)

My one adjustment to what you say here is the bit about history. I get your point of isolating it out for a second, but it has to go back in after the highlight because it's the contextual glue that is necessary to figure out the present and possible trajectories.
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
No I think it should have been investigated but most usually dont of even get solved . If I were Zimmerman Id probably kill myself than have to live with that for the rest of my life . Even if he was justified . It also was used for the Gun control Issue . Never let a crisis go to waste .

So tell me why you don't think that a killing of a 17 year old should have been investigated. If that had been your son and someone claimed Stand Your Ground or Self Defense, would you want an investigation to see if the killing was justified?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
In the immortal words of the great philosopher, John McEnroe:

You cannot be serious!

Don't see any agenda? That's a staggering admission. Ok, how's this for an example -
....
There's always an agenda, P. Perception management for all! Oh and freedom and democracy, too.
So what's the agenda in the boiling point of water? What's the agenda in the saturation/condensation point of the atmosphere?
What's the agenda in the law of thermodynamics? What's the agenda in the physics that make a computer work?
 
J

Joe

Guest
So tell me why you don't think that a killing of a 17 year old should have been investigated. If that had been your son and someone claimed Stand Your Ground or Self Defense, would you want an investigation to see if the killing was justified?

was I not clear ? I said they should . That was up to the police in the beginning and they didnt charge Zimmerman until they were forced to do so . lack of evidence . So when he walks after millions of dollars have been spent without a valid case . Look at OJ he cost the city of LA millions most think he murdered two people yet he walked and later was found guilty in civil court . The cop was a racist and OJ walked away a free man . No Justice for those two people ?
 
J

Joe

Guest
Illuminati Boy@JeffreyGreenz
1h
"@NiggasBLike: George W. Zimmerman 159 Edgewater Circle. Sanford, Florida. 32773 y'all know what to do..." #BangBang
Expand
  • Reply
  • Retweet
  • Favorite
  • More that was his parents old adress they no longer live there afer the first threats yet this tweeter doest seem to care about someone innocent get killed ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
was I not clear ? I said they should . That was up to the police in the beginning and they didnt charge Zimmerman until they were forced to do so . lack of evidence . So when he walks after millions of dollars have been spent without a valid case . Look at OJ he cost the city of LA millions most think he murdered two people yet he walked and later was found guilty in civil court . The cop was a racist and OJ walked away a free man . No Justice for those two people ?

Lack of evidence because they didn't investigate. Zimmerman said it was self defense and the basically took his word for it because there was no evidence supporting the contrary. As for the outcome, I'm satisfied. The prosecution didn't do the greatest job, but all they had was circumstantial evidence. Morally speaking, I don't feel that Zimmerman is innocent, but in America we are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is the price we pay for holding a high standard of proof. Sometimes people like O.J. Simpson and Zimmerman get away with it.
joe 13 Jul

@JeffreyGreenz @NiggasBLike thats was his parents old address . so now when a innocent person gets hurt who fault will it be ?





In Reply to Illuminati Boy and joe
Illuminati Boy
@JeffreyGreenz
ain't my fault nigga, and idgaf if anybody gets hurts ain't my prob

11:01 PM - 13 Jul 13
Internet comments are not an accurate reflection of reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Articles

Top