Hey Rhizo the mushroom man. We can go over the burden of proof trap again, if you want 
It is about whether or not we ar emaking claims tha need to be supported, whether our beleifs are objective or subjective. Whether we think the other should beleive what we do, that we are right and they are wrong.
Yes, I didn't mean literally snake oil, but literally false. Literally the allegorical meaning of snake-oil. Literally the allegorical??? Now, to be clear, I didn't think tinctures were medicine, but that homeopathy could include naturopathy... I had the definition of the word misrepresented to me.
I don't want to get back into this, but I have to say a few things. I respect your views on the sbject. I don't think there is such a thing as Al Queda. At least that it is not what we are told it is. There is not a bunch of radical Muslims going to work all week ("morning Akbar", "morning Muhammad") as the most advanced and international terrorist network in the world. If anything Al Queda is like Oceana and Eurasia, made up enemies. There was no mention of Al Queda before the "war on terror", and it is likely that the translation means "base" in the sense of "database", like the intellegence people took what was a database of names of suspected radicals, and called it a highly orginized international armed group.
Long story short, I am skeptical that Al Queda is real. I am skeptical that alleged 19 hijackers stole four airplanes without fuss, flew them into shit for hours with no response. Flew one into what might be the most heavily defended building in the world (you think the Pentagon dosn't have the ability to defend itself from a giant airplane?). And (three) steel framed buildings having massive stuctural failure after an hour of kerosine and printer paper fires that is descried as a "pancake" collapse but seems to involve a lot more white powdery dust that that would entail...
It is not that I ignore the fantastic evidence the Commissions gathered and pick fringe shit. It is that both are theories are conpriracies, but the governemtn backed story is fairy tale bullshit. It is so fake it hurst my head. And so as a skeptic, I doubt the version of the story with the most stink of lies and manipulation.
Ugh. May be I should have just walked away, but I want to try to not be misunderstood.
Thanks,
-Pip
It is about whether or not we ar emaking claims tha need to be supported, whether our beleifs are objective or subjective. Whether we think the other should beleive what we do, that we are right and they are wrong.Yes, I didn't mean literally snake oil, but literally false. Literally the allegorical meaning of snake-oil. Literally the allegorical??? Now, to be clear, I didn't think tinctures were medicine, but that homeopathy could include naturopathy... I had the definition of the word misrepresented to me.
I don't want to get back into this, but I have to say a few things. I respect your views on the sbject. I don't think there is such a thing as Al Queda. At least that it is not what we are told it is. There is not a bunch of radical Muslims going to work all week ("morning Akbar", "morning Muhammad") as the most advanced and international terrorist network in the world. If anything Al Queda is like Oceana and Eurasia, made up enemies. There was no mention of Al Queda before the "war on terror", and it is likely that the translation means "base" in the sense of "database", like the intellegence people took what was a database of names of suspected radicals, and called it a highly orginized international armed group.
Long story short, I am skeptical that Al Queda is real. I am skeptical that alleged 19 hijackers stole four airplanes without fuss, flew them into shit for hours with no response. Flew one into what might be the most heavily defended building in the world (you think the Pentagon dosn't have the ability to defend itself from a giant airplane?). And (three) steel framed buildings having massive stuctural failure after an hour of kerosine and printer paper fires that is descried as a "pancake" collapse but seems to involve a lot more white powdery dust that that would entail...
It is not that I ignore the fantastic evidence the Commissions gathered and pick fringe shit. It is that both are theories are conpriracies, but the governemtn backed story is fairy tale bullshit. It is so fake it hurst my head. And so as a skeptic, I doubt the version of the story with the most stink of lies and manipulation.
Ugh. May be I should have just walked away, but I want to try to not be misunderstood.
Thanks,
-Pip
