mewmew

ok let's discuss it.

its not true.

__________________

AniMeFaN

well i guess you guys have something to argue about after all

Miburo

I'm telling YOU what YOU'RE suppose to do. I'm not using a general version of "you" that applies to everyone in every single scenario. I'm talking to YOU, specifically. YOU'RE job is "to provide an arguement for or against the conspiracy." In this case, for, since that's the side you're defending.

If you had just created a topic in a totally objective way and not participated in the debate at all, even by playing devil's advocate, then yeah. You wouldn't have to provide any arguments since you're not making any claims. YOU didn't do that though. YOUR original post suggested that such a thing existed, and you attempted to defend that stance in posts in this thread.


And besides, what's the fucking problem? Even if we pretend you were trying to be the objective debate moderator and just did a piss-poor job of it, surely you have an opinion on the matter. And, if you don't, surely you can formulate one. So if you're going to keep posting in this thread, then debate. If not, then go back to the FC section or wherever it is that all the other dumbshits post. It's as simple as that.

Mal

My thoughts on the first ten minutes of your linked video:

It started off poorly by equivocating hardcore, and then proceeded to spend 3 minutes committing the exact same fallacy. Contrary to what this video tries to tell you, all uses of the phrase "new world order" by those used as evidence do not refer to any organization. Instead, every person in the video was using the term in it's traditional meaning of "any period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power."

Beyond the repeated fallacy, there were several varying time frames mentioned by those in the video for the creation of the "New World Order." Each of those time frames coincided with the end of a war or large meeting of nations, again matching the traditional definition of the phrase.

The mention of Batten's The New World Order that follows is not only irrelevant, but grossly misinterprets both individual passages and the overall intent of the book.



I had second thoughts about watching it when I discovered it was created by one of the morons behind Loose Change, but I watched it anyway.

AniMeFaN

@ miburo-first off your completely changed what you said before which was clearly ts is suppose to choose a side and provide an arguement since this is a sub section of the debate forum, you only changed it after i said and mal agreed that this is obviously not the case.

second i did not take a side, i explained the conspiracy theory and looked forward to a discussion on the matter but i seem to get this shitty moderator coming into my threads constantly to tell me im doing such a bad job of moderating a debate which i cant seem to get any opinions on because he is constantly coming down on people telling them how stupid they are, shouldnt be posting in these forums when the fact is everyone has an opinion whether it be a good one or not, i rather have someone post a shitty idea or opinion and contribute than have a mod contributing absolutely nothing and just destroying the little discussion that was going on.

edit: @ mal- you should watch more, the different people using the name new world order really isnt that important in the grand scheme of things, they go into detail on alot of different things, that was just the opening to establish the name.

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by AniMeFaN second i did not take a side, i explained the conspiracy theory and looked forward to a discussion on the matter but i seem to get this shitty moderator coming into my threads constantly to tell me im doing such a bad job of moderating a debate which i cant seem to get any opinions on because he is constantly coming down on people telling them how stupid they are, shouldnt be posting in these forums when the fact is everyone has an opinion whether it be a good one or not, i rather have someone post a shitty idea or opinion and contribute than have a mod contributing absolutely nothing and just destroying the little discussion that was going on.

1) We aren't interested in bad opinions.
2) If discussion is so easily destroyed, then the problem is with the topic, not those destroying the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AniMeFaN you should watch more, the different people using the name new world order really isnt that important in the grand scheme of things, they go into detail on alot of different things, that was just the opening to establish the name.

I'm not watching it all at once. I'd start RAEGING and not be able to watch it ever again. I have downloaded it and will consider continuing to watch it in intervals.

AniMeFaN

1.well im interested in hearing everyones opinion although prefer an intelligent one that maybee i could learn something from.

2.so you dont think something is wrong when a moderator is coming into a thread with no intention of posting about the topic being discussed and instead is steering us away from the topic, if i did something wrong in the thread that needed to be addressed, he could have sent me a message saying that you should try not to do this or should be doing this for future reference. no he comes in and talks down to people, says only smart people should use the forum yet he contributes absolutely nothing to the topic of discussion

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by AniMeFaN 1.well im interested in hearing everyones opinion although prefer an intelligent one that maybee i could learn something from.

If you want to hear stupid opinions then feel free to ask around at other forums. We here at NL have higher standards and prefer to hear only from people who can think logically and are willing to do a little research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AniMeFaN 2.so you dont think something is wrong when a moderator is coming into a thread with no intention of posting about the topic being discussed and instead is steering us away from the topic, if i did something wrong in the thread that needed to be addressed, he could have sent me a message saying that you should try not to do this or should be doing this for future reference. no he comes in and talks down to people, says only smart people should use the forum yet he contributes absolutely nothing to the topic of discussion

Miburo has every intention of posting about the topic, it is simply that the actual topic at the time he came in wasn't the New World Order. Instead, he joined the conversation he came into, which was concerning what this thread should be, and what you are responsible for as its creator. As soon as everyone figures out exactly what is going on in this thread, everyone will start discussing the New World Order.

Miburo

What? ts=topic starter? I didn't know you meant that till just now that you repeated it. I thought that was some sort of typo.

So in that case, no, the topic creator doesn't have to choose a side when he creates the topic. If he does that, then he better damn well create the topic in an objective way. Was your original post objective? No. It was clearly pro-conspiracy. As were your subsequent posts. If you were trying to be unbiased and objective, then you failed at it quite hard.
You can't seem to get any opinions on it because you provided no evidence of it. If someone presented this conspiracy to me I'd say the same exact thing Mal did, "Where is the proof?" Why should I take anything seriously if there isn't an ounce of evidence to support it? I shouldn't, and neither will anyone else who isn't a complete dumbass. That's why they're asking for some sort of proof. All this happened BEFORE I posted, by the way. So don't blame me for your shitty thread and shitty posts.

And I'd rather have someone post a shitty opinion and contribute too. That's why I'm telling you to support your stance with evidence. Up until someone asked you to actually justify this conspiracy theory with actual evidence you had no problem defending it. After that you decided that you had absolutely no opinion on the matter and didn't want to debate it. All you did is cry about how mean people are, and about how you shouldn't have to debate in the debate section. All of which CONTRIBUTES NOTHING to the topic.

Mal asking for proof would result in a contribution to the topic of discussion, if you weren't such a baby about it and complied. Same thing with me telling you to stop your bitching and debate your stance. That would have resulted in a contribution to the topic of discussion as well. The only person impeding discussion is you, with your crybaby sissy attitude. Like I said, just fucking pick a stance and debate it. Or don't post. What's the big deal? Seriously, cry moar, little baby.

AniMeFaN

mib you are full of shit, you knew exactly what i was talking about when you responded and now realize you stated something wrong and scrambled and changed things around like im talking about your specific case not in general and now i didnt no what ts was i thought it was a typo sais the mod of a forum.

i did not defend anything, all i did was explain the conspiracy, and i blame you for steering us off track when i tried to bring us back, you can clearly see if you go back that after mal wanted evidence i wnet ahead and answered someones question and posted a link with information for people who did not understand the conpiracy and wished for evidence and than you have to come in and take us back of course again with a bunch of useless post having nothing to do with topic.

you keep telling me to debate, who am i suppose to debate and why am i suppose to debate? i started a topic for discussion hoping i would get to hear what people thought about the topic which is a conspiracy theory but there are people not posting about what they think, they just are saying i want evidence that this conspiracy is real. also this thread hasnt even been open 1 day yet so why dont we let some peopel get involved

Miburo

Yeah, I honestly had no clue what "ts" meant and figured it was a typo. It's not like you don't make typos. "arguement" "wnet" "conpiracy" "peopel" "sais" etc. My bad. I should have verified if it was yet another one of your typos, or if you were using some relatively uncommon acronym.

Not that it even matters, since I did clarify what I meant once I figured out what you were actually talking about. And the clarification didn't effect you anyway, since you didn't create a non-biased, objective original post in the first place.

I guess I should just make sure, did you mean "says" there. Or is "sais" an acronym for something too? Or are you talking about those three pronged close range weapons? Don't want you to make a big deal about stupid shit again.
Would you like me to quote all the posts of yours that clearly seemed to be supporting the conspiracy? And then point out in those posts the lack of proof, which made this entire topic pretty much impossible to discuss? I'll gladly do so if you like.

I'll tell you right now that it will just be you attempting to argue semantics though, and it'll be stupid as fuck. All while making this topic suck even harder. But if that's what you want me to do, then I don't give a fuck.
You debate with the people that disagree with your stance. And you do it because this is the debate section. People want evidence that supports this theory so that there is something to actually talk about.

Here, I'll start off with what any non-moron would say to this topic:

Why should I believe this? Is there any proof? If not, then I don't support this theory (And neither will anyone else who understands even the most basic of logic) and this topic is stupid. If there is proof, then FUCKING POST IT so that there can be a discussion.

Now you respond with proof that supports the conspiracy theory you presented. Then we can discuss it from there. Pretty easy, aye champ? I'm trying (And have been trying) to discuss the topic, now you hold up your end of the discussion.

ACt

For the love of god - your hole is deep enough. Quit digging!

rokudaime_hokage

Shit gotta watch the News more often now, since when that became a fact huh?

that's why people ask you for evidence, not only because you're right by saying that not everyone knows about it, but also becuase stating stupid shit like that would obviously make you look like a dumbfuck.

NO SHIT SHERLOK!


I saw as much media propaganda for other candidates like Clinton and McCain as I did for Obama (unless in your theory those other candidates are also submitted to the Legion of Doom you're talking about.)

AniMeFaN

@miburo- i will come up with some "evidence" when i get a chance for the discussion although i dont see how the side of the conspiracy could possibly win a debate.

@akamaruchewtoy-there is no hole that was dug

@rokudaime_hokage-if you actually read what i was responding to, i was responding to someone who said this was not a conspiracy and shouldnt have been in the conspiracy theory section of the forum, i responded by saying you act like people are well aware and that it is fact, that it should indeed be in the conspiracy theory section. you completely changed the meaning of what i wrote by neglecting to highlight the first part of the sentence and instead started in the middle.

and yes clinton, bush, obama are all part of the same orgainzations and the conspiracy theory concludes they are all under the influence of a higher power above the government and all are following the new world orders agenda.

rokudaime_hokage

fuck.... yeah, read it wrong, poor reading comprehencion mixed with lazyness to read it all, i guess...my bad.
Also, do you know who "donated" all (or the majority) of the money necessary for the campaings of each of the mentioned candidates? Or how can you assume that?
I mean is understandable to think that rich people donate money to candidates campaings in order to gain a possible friendship with the candidate and/or receive "favors" later if the guy wins.
But, to just say that shit without proof is just dumb.