Then what?

[MrPeete]

I like reading the different points of view here. Very interesting stuff.

My question is, are most of you content with all of the speculation that goes on in the threads about religion, government, world events, laws, holidays, etc... ?

I see a whole lot of "this is like this because of this and it's fucked up" and "you need to wake up if you don't think like this" type of threads here. Again, I personally like to read how different people view things and I don't take any of it too seriously so I'm not trying to start any shit. At the same time I can't help but sincerely wonder what would happen if some of the events, concepts, etc... that are speculated on every day in this forum were to actually be proven true? I mean proven true in a sense that leaves no shadow of doubt (even for the skeptics of everything).

Then what? A lot of words are being spoken but I'm wondering if there's any plans for action or reaction beyond those words.

Just a random thought...

*takes cover*

 

[2-0-NINE]

I mean proven true in a sense that leaves no shadow of doubt (even for the skeptics of everything

No matter how much you prove something to be true, there will always be skeptics.

Then what? A lot of words are being spoken but I'm wondering if there's any plans for action or reaction beyond those words.

My time is nigh.

 

[Ethereal]

At the same time I can't help but sincerely wonder what would happen if some of the events, concepts, etc... that are speculated on every day in this forum were to actually be proven true? I mean proven true in a sense that leaves no shadow of doubt (even for the skeptics of everything).

The easiest route to (appeal) righteousness is through skepticism. That is, those who constantly question what is presented to them as a truth. Many of us often do this, but some of us much more than others. Take for example the World Trade Center towers that were destroyed. There is no imaginable evidence or proof that could convice to the skeptics, or Anti-Americans as they have been called (they know who they are) that America was not involved in these attacks.

Because we can not know for sure, and we do not have conclusive evidence, let's look at this from a hypothetical point of view. Suppose a man named Habib was responsible for organizing these attacks on America while 20 of his cohorts carried them out. Let us also suppose that no American organization had any affiliation with any of these men. These 20 men, minus Habib who simply organized the attack, highjacked airplanes and crashed them into the towers. What we have here is a clear cut case of terrorism in the United States. Moving forward, suppose Habib confessed to the media that he was responsible for everything. Case closed right? Yeah.. right.

NOT MANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD (WHO ARGUED AGAINST AMERICA) WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT FORCED INTO A CONFESSION.

And that is the plain and simple truth. There is no imaginable scenario, no amount of evidence humanly possible for clearing America in these attacks whether they did it or not. Now on the other hand if someone from the Bush administration were to come forward and say America was involved in these attacks, it would be considered undeniable proof of such claims, and there would no longer be a debate.

THIS IS A GREAT FALLACY.

It completely protects and validates the reasoning of people on one side, while those on the other side are constantly spinning their wheels.

The example I used is just a small one, but this idea can be applied to so many other areas of the political/social spectrum.

So to answer your question. For some people, "undeniable proof" would be enough to change ones opinion while for others, the same "undeniable proof" is not proof at all, but merely a form of propaganda used to sway public opinion.

 

[HERESY]

NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD (WHO ARGUED AGAINST AMERICA) WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT FORCED INTO A CONFESSION.

You base this assumption on what? Remember your argument is a hypothetical one, and in your example you say, "Let us also suppose that no American organization had any affiliation with any of these men.", so if no affiliation has been made, why do you assume people would believe he was not forced into a confession?

Now on the other hand if someone from the Bush administration were to come forward and say America was involved in these attacks, it would be considered undeniable proof of such claims, and there would no longer be a debate.

Actually there WOULD be a debate, and it would be a debate on if he was forced to come forward (for whatever reason).

 

[Ethereal]

You base this assumption on what? Remember your argument is a hypothetical one, and in your example you say, "Let us also suppose that no American organization had any affiliation with any of these men.", so if no affiliation has been made, why do you assume people would believe he was not forced into a confession?

I base this assessment (not assumption) on my years of interacting with people in this forum. I put to use both objective and subjective observations and characterizations of the people I interact with in this forum. I also believe that if I dug through the archives I could find some sort of support for my claims, such as "confessions" already posted in this forum.

I'm guessing you meant to ask me, "why would people believe he was forced into a confession" if no affiliation was established. I am refering to no prior affiliation, but after these attacks, most certainly there will be questions as to how America will benefit from the confession on said man, especially if and when action was taken in retaliation.

Actually there WOULD be a debate, and it would be a debate on if he was forced to come forward (for whatever reason).

So you're telling me that if Donald Rumsfeld came forward and admitted to both organizing and thwarting the attacks that Mcleanhatch or someone like him is going to argue against it? I really don't see this happening.

 

[HERESY]

I base this assessment (not assumption) on my years of interacting with people in this forum.

No this is an assumption. You ASSUME everyone on this board would do what you claim they would, and your years of interaction with people on this board is limited at best.

I put to use both objective and subjective observations and characterizations of the people I interact with in this forum. I also believe that if I dug through the archives I could find some sort of support for my claims, such as "confessions" already posted in this forum.

Look at the claim you're making, "NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD (WHO ARGUED AGAINST AMERICA) WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT FORCED INTO A CONFESSION." Now, how can you POSSIBLY say NOT A SINGLE PERSON would do XY and Z? You are saying that EVERY single person who has argued against america will have the same view, but I can dig up TONS of support showing MANY instances of those same people being in disagreement over the same topic (and the extent americas envolvement.)

I'm guessing you meant to ask me, "why would people believe he was forced into a confession" if no affiliation was established.

No, my question is to YOU. Why do YOU believe people would sway one way or the other?

I am refering to no prior affiliation, but after these attacks, most certainly there will be questions as to how America will benefit from the confession on said man, especially if and when action was taken in retaliation.

This is jumpig from A to Z without going through B to Y. So what you're claiming in your example is no PRIOR affiliation, yet america will somehow benefit from a confession, and the people will just assume the cofession was coerced?

So you're telling me that if Donald Rumsfeld came forward and admitted to both organizing and thwarting the attacks that Mcleanhatch or someone like him is going to argue against it?

In some cases YES!

I really don't see this happening.

The current war in Iraq is a similar situation. Not the same but close to it.

 

[Ethereal]

No this is an assumption. You ASSUME everyone on this board would do what you claim they would, and your years of interaction with people on this board is limited at best.

Yours ASSUMING my interaction is limited at best. This game is boring.

Look at the claim you're making, "NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD (WHO ARGUED AGAINST AMERICA) WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT FORCED INTO A CONFESSION." Now, how can you POSSIBLY say NOT A SINGLE PERSON would do XY and Z? You are saying that EVERY single person who has argued against america will have the same view, but I can dig up TONS of support showing MANY instances of those same people being in disagreement over the same topic (and the extent americas envolvement.)

Actually I was ASSUMING that those who read this would do so with the utilization of some common sense, and in doing so could decipher for themselves the point I was trying to make, which in all actuality, was not hard to do at all.

This is jumpig from A to Z without going through B to Y. So what you're claiming in your example is no PRIOR affiliation, yet america will somehow benefit from a confession, and the people will just assume the cofession was coerced?

Absolutely. If Habib is from an oil rich country and attacked America; And America in turn attacked his oil rich country AFTER he confessed. Would it not seem likely that someone would say his confession was fake and that America set the whole thing up just to get the oil? I hope this is becoming clear to you.

I will try to get to what I missed later.

 

[HERESY]

Yours ASSUMING my interaction is limited at best. This game is boring.

No, your interaction IS limited. Have you interacted with EVERY single person here who is against america or believes america had something to do with 9-11? If the answer is no, which it is, you really have no argument.

Actually I was ASSUMING that those who read this would do so with the utilization of some common sense, and in doing so could decipher for themselves the point I was trying to make, which in all actuality, was not hard to do at all.

The point I'm making is DON'T assume.

Absolutely. If Habib is from an oil rich country and attacked America; And America in turn attacked his oil rich country AFTER he confessed. Would it not seem likely that someone would say his confession was fake and that America set the whole thing up just to get the oil?

There is a possibility that some would say it was fake, but there is also a possibility that some would say retalliation is a must REGARDLESS of how much oil his country has. Everything becomes suspect when the retalitory country is low in oil and doesn't provide "untainted" evidence supporting the claim. However, what is NOT a possibility is "NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD (WHO ARGUED AGAINST AMERICA) WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT FORCED INTO A CONFESSION.", and I say this due to the fact that many people here have different views pertaining to the extent of Bin Laden and americas involvement in 9-11.

I hope this is becoming clear to you.

It was clear when I first read it, but thanks for further clarification.

 

[Hutch]

Hehe, I love how every thread on here boils down to a one-on-one between two people with conflicting arguments (or two-on-one, or three-on-one!).

 

[Ethereal]

HERESY, I fixed it for you. I made a much more vague (as this seems to be the easy way around things) claim, so that should clear things up.

As for my assumptions, they are what they are. I can make all the assumptions I want, we all do it, even you. Your time would be better spent (assumption) not arguing petty little fragments of my sentences. You have done this, and you can continue to do so until you're blue in the face, but as of now I stand by the point I was trying to get across.

Mr. Peete I hope my response was something like what you were looking for.

 

[HERESY]

HERESY, I fixed it for you.

NITRO, you fixed it for yourself.

I made a much more vague (as this seems to be the easy way around things) claim, so that should clear things up.

Easy way around things? Clear things up?

As for my assumptions, they are what they are.

Right.

I can make all the assumptions I want, we all do it, even you.

First of all, this is not about me. This is about YOU and what YOU have assumed. Second of all, I tend to eliminate assumptions by doing two simple things--ask questions and quote what the person actually said. Try it sometimes.

Your time would be better spent (assumption) not arguing petty little fragments of my sentences.

My time would be better spent eating steamed crab and steak, but for now I have to post on the siccness. Again, stop making assumptions and making it seem like everyone on here (those who are against america) has the same ideas or beliefs.

You have done this, and you can continue to do so until you're blue in the face, but as of now I stand by the point I was trying to get across.

You have NO point. Here it is you come with some far fetched story about 20 men blowing up planes and buildings, and you jump from...better yet...go back and READ your example. Read it several times over and acknowledge the fact that it just doesn't make sense. You are suggesting people are going to jump from A to Z, but the posts made by readers/members of this site actually tell a different story.

Mr. Peete I hope my response was something like what you were looking for.

You can appeal to his intellect (for sympathy or support) all you want, but that doesn't fly with me. When it is time to address MR. PEETE and his question I will do so, but for now, Im dealing with you.

 

[2-0-NINE]

Hehe, I love how every thread on here boils down to a one-on-one between two people with conflicting arguments (or two-on-one, or three-on-one!).

This wouldn't be the GOM if we all agreed.

 

[Ethereal]

NITRO, you fixed it for yourself.

No I was fine with it the way it was. You had a problem with it so I made it easier for a person of your capacity to understand. Rather then debate whether or not "EVERY LAST PERSON" would act in a certain way, find out if ANYONE would. Then you are attacking the point and not the sentence.

Easy way around things? Clear things up?

Yes, if I say everyone or no one, then it is set at that exact amount. If I use words such as "many", "some" or "a lot", vague terms, then it is much harder to attack what the person is saying.

First of all, this is not about me. This is about YOU and what YOU have assumed. Second of all, I tend to eliminate assumptions by doing two simple things--ask questions and quote what the person actually said. Try it sometimes.

Thanks, but I feel comfortable believing people can understand my points without being walked through each sentence. Some people can not, and in such cases I will help them along.

My time would be better spent eating steamed crab and steak, but for now I have to post on the siccness. Again, stop making assumptions and making it seem like everyone on here (those who are against america) has the same ideas or beliefs.

LOL you just validated my "assumption". Find something better to do then critique peoples use of words and sentence structure. I could spend plenty of time tearing your posts to shit but that is the last thing on my mind.

You have NO point. Here it is you come with some far fetched story about 20 men blowing up planes and buildings, and you jump from...better yet...go back and READ your example. Read it several times over and acknowledge the fact that it just doesn't make sense. You are suggesting people are going to jump from A to Z, but the posts made by readers/members of this site actually tell a different story.

You have NO common sense, or at least you have chosen not to use it in here. The hypothetical (see hypothetical at dictionary.com) scenario makes perfect sense. If you are unable to understand it then go find some GOM for tottlers. You are wasting my time here. If you don't understand something about it, THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND RATHER THEN BITCH ABOUT IT ON A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD.

You can appeal to his intellect (for sympathy or support) all you want, but that doesn't fly with me. When it is time to address MR. PEETE and his question I will do so, but for now, Im dealing with you.

You can try all you want to appeal to the readers of this forum as being the big bad wolf, but that shit does not fly with me. You can fool some new users, but I have seen it before and personally I am not impressed with it. Your ability to argue far surpasses your intellect which is why you find yourself breaking down posts debating as much as a single word, taking things out of context. Your posts are filled with fallacies that I let go because I understand what your point, whereas you need things broken down into laymans terms. Please don't come back with "I dont need to appeal to the readers" or "I don't care if your impressed" because thats gay shit. I DONT HAVE TIME TO ARGUE DUMB SHIT WITH YOU. So after this post I will give you one more chance.

If you stray from my original post then I am not going to respond to you.

 

[HERESY]

Uh oh!

No I was fine with it the way it was.

Sure.

You had a problem with it so I made it easier for a person of your capacity to understand.

No, you didn't "dumb it down" for the black guy. I simply read through your BS, and start calling you on it.

Rather then debate whether or not "EVERY LAST PERSON" would act in a certain way, find out if ANYONE would.

Now you are talking about ANYONE when you were just talking about EVERYONE! LMAO! Listen, as I have stated before, your experience is limited, but I actually said in some cases people WOULD do AB and C, but you were making it seem as if everyone is going baaaaaaaaaaaaaaah or jumping off a cliff like a lemming (which actually don't even jump off cliffs, but you get my point.)

Then you are attacking the point and not the sentence.

Did you not read when I said, "but I can dig up TONS of support showing MANY instances of those same people being in disagreement over the same topic (and the extent americas envolvement.)" :dead:

Yes, if I say everyone or no one, then it is set at that exact amount. If I use words such as "many", "some" or "a lot", vague terms, then it is much harder to attack what the person is saying.

But, Nitro you did use an exact amount, and in doing so it appears you implied a high level of "following" by the members who are "against america", but I am telling you that is not the case.

Thanks, but I feel comfortable believing people can understand my points without being walked through each sentence. Some people can not, and in such cases I will help them along.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. If you are over here implying people are going to jump from A to Z, and provide NO PROOf of such a thing occuring (on this site) I am going to call you on it, and if I have to butcher your post and quote WORD BY WORD so be it. As long as I am not putting words in your mouth or insulting you personally, you should be man enough to elaborate, clarify and stick to your argument.

LOL you just validated my "assumption". Find something better to do then critique peoples use of words and sentence structure. I could spend plenty of time tearing your posts to shit but that is the last thing on my mind.

Your entire argument is people are going to be sheep, and if you pay attention to what I am quoting, it is not your grammer structure I am concerned with. The way your words were implied is what I have a problem with, and if you feel like tearing my posts to shit feel free to do so, because it actually makes for a better debate/argument/dialog.

If other people didn't pick it up (what you implied) that is fine, but I picked it up and I commented on it, and if you do not like the fact that I did so, you can do one of several things. Place me on ignore, don't post or accept the fact that I AM going to continue to do what I do. In any case, the choice is YOURS, and I am going to live with whatever choice you make. :classic:

You have NO common sense, or at least you have chosen not to use it in here. The hypothetical (see hypothetical at dictionary.com) scenario makes perfect sense. If you are unable to understand it then go find some GOM for tottlers. You are wasting my time here. If you don't understand something about it, THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND RATHER THEN BITCH ABOUT IT ON A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD.

Nitro, you were using a hypothetical scenario based on what some believe is a real life event, but the results of this hypothetical event make NO SENSE AT ALL. You went from A to Z without going through B to Y, and thats what I have a problem with, and the fact that people on this board have NOT done what you said they would do is more proof of why it DOESN'T make sense.

Again, it is not a case of what I don't understand because I understand every bit of it. If you would stop assuming I don't understand (this belief is probably derived from the fact that I won't answer how you want me to answer) everything would be ok.

What I am actually doing is biting my tongue and refraining from going on a major tangent (this is a minor one) about how ILLOGICAL your entire scenario and synopsis really is. (BTW, THE ALL CAPS ARE IMPRESSIVE.)

You can try all you want to appeal to the readers of this forum as being the big bad wolf, but that shit does not fly with me.

It doesn't need to fly with you, and hopefully it doesn't fly with anyone on here, but if the shoe fits wear it. Thanks for letting me know that you view me as the big bad wolf (even though you don't want to admit it.)

You can fool some new users, but I have seen it before and personally I am not impressed with it.

Don't need to be, and what I am not impressed with is your blatent disregard for individuality and belief that many here are incapable of formulating orginal thoughts and opinions. Thats what it all boils down to,a nd I made it perfectly clear in this post and in previous posts.

Your ability to argue far surpasses your intellect which is why you find yourself breaking down posts debating as much as a single word, taking things out of context.

I haven't taken anything out of context, and if I break down your arguments to the finest detail don't blame me. Blame my parents, blame the lawyers, debators and articulate people in my family, blame my debate teacher, but most of all blame GOD. Now as far as intellect goes what do you define it as and what are you basing your claim on? Do you feel the general consensus of this website agrees with your statement of my ability to argue far surpasses my intellect?

Your posts are filled with fallacies that I let go because I understand what your point, whereas you need things broken down into laymans terms.

YOUR ENTIRE POINT WAS ONE GIGANTIC FALLACY! Do I need to list the many fallacious arguments you made in your initial post? I don't need things broken down in laymens terms, because no matter which way you break it down it is NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY SENSE! PERIOD. Now as far as cutting and pasting EVERY person in this foum pretty much does it now (I probably made it famous here), and it is a GREAT way of actually understanding what the person is saying and a great way to build a response. Hutch does it, 206 does it, EDJ does it, Ender does it, Nostril King did it, Xianex does it, etc. Instead of focusing on what I am doing why don't you focus on what I am saying:

Your entire argument is fallacious, and your loquaciousness (which gave birth to a higly absurd).....let me stop. LMAO! Again, focus on what I am saying about your claim and pay less attention to how I go about saying it (cutting and pasting.)

Please don't come back with "I dont need to appeal to the readers" or "I don't care if your impressed" because thats gay shit.

I wasn't going to come with that, but to be honest, I don't care if you are impressed. Now as far as the readers are concerned, I probably do need to appeal to them, but I am letting YOU know that what you typed did not appeal to me. I am doing it in a somewhat respectful fashion and tone (no cusswords and no insults). I would suggest if you actually want me to understand your point, you lead by example and not lower your standards to the point where you are cussing up a storm and typing in all caps (while I am sitting back, typing in the same voice and laughing at your ranting and raving)

I DONT HAVE TIME TO ARGUE DUMB SHIT WITH YOU. So after this post I will give you one more chance.

Listen, you don't give me one more chance. What do you think this is? LMAO! I have made myself quite clear as to why your position does not make sense, but you seem to overlook it.

Again, stop making assumptions and making it seem like everyone on here (those who are against america) has the same ideas or beliefs.

You are suggesting people are going to jump from A to Z, but the posts made by readers/members of this site actually tell a different story.

However, what is NOT a possibility is "NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD (WHO ARGUED AGAINST AMERICA) WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT FORCED INTO A CONFESSION.", and I say this due to the fact that many people here have different views pertaining to the extent of Bin Laden and americas involvement in 9-11.

No, my question is to YOU. Why do YOU believe people would sway one way or the other?

This is jumpig from A to Z without going through B to Y. So what you're claiming in your example is no PRIOR affiliation, yet america will somehow benefit from a confession, and the people will just assume the cofession was coerced?

Your entire claim is, most people here who are against america are going to believe X. My claim is you have NOTHING to support your claim, and your hypothetical scenario jumps all over the place. How do I need to say it so you can understand this? Do I need to type broken english? Do I need to type Hebrew (damn I'm rusty in the hebrew now) or do I need to curse and rave like a lunatic all while using cap letters to emphasis those points?

If you stray from my original post then I am not going to respond to you

.

So? You aren't 5'7, with curly black hair, nice complextion and skin 36C - 24 - 38, and a nice bank account. WHY would I loose sleep over you not responding to me?

 

[HERESY]

My question is, are most of you content with all of the speculation that goes on in the threads about religion, government, world events, laws, holidays, etc... ?

I believe I can say I speak for the board when I say I say no one here is truly content with the views of others. We all have our own opinions (most of us anyway), and the fact that we do have a difference of opinions, go back and fourth, cite sources etc shows this. Take a look at the back and fourth action between Nitro and myself in THIS thread (which I am dragging out to prove a point), and pay attention to the back and fourth action between Nitro and myself in the thread I recently made about the cop shooting. Two different vibes don't you think? Two different ways of showing how you are NOT content right?

At the same time I can't help but sincerely wonder what would happen if some of the events, concepts, etc... that are speculated on every day in this forum were to actually be proven true? I mean proven true in a sense that leaves no shadow of doubt (even for the skeptics of everything).

You would still have some people trying to justify or hold on to their beliefs. Thats human nature, and will happen until this world explodes. Take the WMD argument for example. Even after government officials said no WMD's were present, certain pro americans still held fast to the belief that they existed and scrutinized weapons expectors. Other pro americans admitted that they did not exist, and now some of them have a different perspective on the war.

Then what? A lot of words are being spoken but I'm wondering if there's any plans for action or reaction beyond those words.

Several of us here are active in our communuties, schools, homeless shelters, churches etc, so people do have a plan of action beyond the words typed here. The problem is it doesn't appear to be enough people taking a stand, and when people do take a stand, it usually falls because someone doesn't like to take orders.

 

[Ethereal]

At the same time I can't help but sincerely wonder what would happen if some of the events, concepts, etc... that are speculated on every day in this forum were to actually be proven true? I mean proven true in a sense that leaves no shadow of doubt (even for the skeptics of everything).

The easiest route to (appeal) righteousness is through skepticism. That is, those who constantly question what is presented to them as a truth. Many of us often do this, but some of us much more than others. Take for example the World Trade Center towers that were destroyed. There is no imaginable evidence or proof that could convice to the skeptics, or Anti-Americans as they have been called (they know who they are) that America was not involved in these attacks.

Because we can not know for sure, and we do not have conclusive evidence, let's look at this from a hypothetical point of view. Suppose a man named Habib was responsible for organizing these attacks on America while 20 of his cohorts carried them out. Let us also suppose that no American organization had any affiliation with any of these men. These 20 men, minus Habib who simply organized the attack, highjacked airplanes and crashed them into the towers. What we have here is a clear cut case of terrorism in the United States. Moving forward, suppose Habib confessed to the media that he was responsible for everything. Case closed right? Yeah.. right.

NOT MANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD (WHO ARGUED AGAINST AMERICA) WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT FORCED INTO A CONFESSION.

And that is the plain and simple truth. There is no imaginable scenario, no amount of evidence humanly possible for clearing America in these attacks whether they did it or not. Now on the other hand if someone from the Bush administration were to come forward and say America was involved in these attacks, it would be considered undeniable proof of such claims, and there would no longer be a debate.

THIS IS A GREAT FALLACY.

It completely protects and validates the reasoning of people on one side, while those on the other side are constantly spinning their wheels.

The example I used is just a small one, but this idea can be applied to so many other areas of the political/social spectrum.

So to answer your question. For some people, "undeniable proof" would be enough to change ones opinion while for others, the same "undeniable proof" is not proof at all, but merely a form of propaganda used to sway public opinion.

 

[MRTHECOSE]

so what would yall do if the s#it hits the fan?