Miburo

Ha, good one, bro. But seriously, either you're totally bullshitting so you can play up the gay little moral high ground card you're using on Num or you're just an idiot.

If you really cared about learning then you wouldn't post in the conspiracy section and act like that justifies you not backing your argument up with evidence in the first place. You're basically just saying that this section is a joke, and there is no reason for anyone intelligent to take the thread seriously. Which is true, making it not really the best way to get intelligent people to have enlightening proper debates with you to satisfy your love of learning and quest for knowledge now, is it? Protip: It's not.

So cut the shit. You want to have a proper debate about something? Then man up and post an actual debate topic in the actual debate section.

Human Rasengan

I"m sorry that everyone is just going in on the OP and not reading my posts.. I've actually began to lay the real ground work for his argument.

I pointed to several instances where this movement has made national news..

this isn't one blanket movement but a coalition of movements .. and law enforcement has quickly decided to place anyone on this groups roster on the domestic terrorist list.. but what about this group warrants that kind treatment.. seriously watch the excerpt form 60 minutes and tell me what you thing k is soo dangerous that if affiliated with this group you should be labeled as a terrorist

the Conspiracy comes with a sincere effort to stonewall the spread of this information and then further curtail those seeking this information by fear of them being labeled a terrorist threat!

Ok I laid out a few points so read and get back to me on it.. I seriously would like to talk about this

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

ACt

Has anyone else realized that a Portuguese graduate student is winning a debate that involves American constitution and law?

That's quite possibly the most worthwhile and hilarious part of this entire thread.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Mal

I agree with everything beyond this, because I was speaking specifically of people who personally failed at life, not people who did not succeed because of external circumstances.

almightywood

I apologize that I misspoke, I meant discussions, not debates.
The way that I respond to Numinous is different than others. He refuses to even consider that he might be wrong on things, so there is not enough open-ness there to get a good back and forth session at all.
I like exploring new possibilities, I'm not so much for the elimination of them, the things that get eliminated have a tendency to resurface making this part a waste of time for me.
I don't want to have a debate about this at all. I was posting a theory in this section because it was exactly what was asked for in the rules of this section.

"No debates here. Only already formed theories. Discuss civilly."

It's an already formed theory, It ain't mine.
He's done nothing of the sort in this thread.

Here's what I think is the original though it's hard to say for sure after 15 years:http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/howcome.html

Numinous

No, you're more concerned about being right and not being questioned. Or don't you remember that:

• you made an argument from ignorance and refused to acknowledge it;
• you said Albert Einstein was hospitalized in a loony bin due to the theory of relativity and wanted to divert blame off of yourself
• you pulled the "fact" that English is the language that is evolves the most out of your ass, when I showed you my mother language changed more grammatically than English. Then you wanted me to show you something hardly quantifiable (the change of definitions over time) using exact, quantifiable terms ("300 years ago")
• you even asked me to provide the proof in this thread when you're the one making the positive claim.

You're not fooling anyone.


Being reasonable =/= being gullible. I read what you presented, thought about it and deemed that it makes little to no sense. That's being reasonable, to be in accordance to reason, not to be in accordance with you.

Now what you want me is to be tricked into agreeing with your faulty points for PC's sake, and that's being gullible.

Sorry, but I'm reasonable, not gullible, so you're wasting your time with these maneuvers.

Also, this video describes exactly how wrong you are about me not being open-minded.

Yes, and? Did an inanimate amount of data in an Internet server also said to you to make a conspiracy theory that has little meat in its bones?

And you show how stupid you really are. Look at the Article you posted (IV) and you'll see it concerns the judicial AND LEGISLATIVE branches, as seen in the very first section of said article.

See how the word "and" makes it clear that the judicial and legislative clauses are not to be confused?

And guess what branch section 3 of Article IV belongs to? Legislative branch, therefore the executive branch has a say in the matter, so the Congress does not have exclusive control over any federal territory whatsoever.

Now let me use the expression properly, there's a thing called reading comprehension, you lack it.

No. You're all about learning and shit and you don't allow yourself to be wrong? That's paradoxical.

Logic and learning are not linked to political correctness. I even despise PC sometimes because it allows such abominations as Scientology and Creationism when anyone with some sense of reason says "fuck that shit". So excuuuuuuuse me, princess, if I'm not as nice as you expect me to be, I only care about the arguments given and how (il)logical they are.

Please do tell what possibilities have you eliminated. Because geocentrism/heliocentrism, alchemy/chemistry, creationism/evolution and many other dichotomous possibilities are mutually exclusive and you can't regard both sides of the dichotomy as equally valid.

Reading the link, it only talks about how the articles affect the status of overseas dependencies (like Guam, Puerto Rico, among others) and the comparison with the proper states. Overseas dependencies do not have regulation of their own like any state, but the US Congress does not have exclusive control over them either.

Also, in all of this, you still haven't talked about how shorter abbreviations are a sign of a scam. Or is that so ridiculous that even you recognized it as such?






QFT. Perhaps it's a bias issue (like a great amount of atheists being more versed in the Bible than Christians themselves) or maybe almightywood is not that bright. Probably both.

__________________

Mal

An "already formed theory" should have evidence to back it up, or evidence should be sought after. That is how theoretical sciences work, that should be how bullshit like this works. If there is no evidence, then even the discussion you want is impossible.

almightywood

You mistakenly accused me of making an argument from ignorance, and wouldn't even admit to the possibility that you might have misinterpreted me. Yes I remember YOUR inability to admit you were wrong here very well. Even after clarification, you still insisted that I had a different meaning to my words. This right here is why you are a worthless piece of shit who likes to make words stand on end and make it seem like you are doing something entirely different than you are.

Unless you see me say 'I believe that', or 'I think that', or 'I disagree', I have taken no stance whatsoever on the subject I am bringing up. Hence why I have discussions (because no stance has to be taken in them), as opposed to you who constantly refers to arguments or debates. I've told you this in a few different ways, yet you somehow insist that bringing something up is tantamount to saying you believe in it.

To which I have replied over and over, that you are only justified in that viewpoint until the person the statement originated from tells you different. You may piss me off enough sometimes to actually get me to begin debating you. That, however, is only proof that you are manipulative, not that I have a belief system about the matter. Apply this to every post you see from me whether past or present, and you SHOULD be able to see that I have been straight with you from the get-go, whereas you have just been intentionally obtuse.
Which is actually a common rumor. As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't care for the elimination of possibilities. Christopher Columbus illustrates why I won't say Al wasn't in a loony bin.
Crates invented the globe 1600 years before "Columbus discovered the world wasn't flat"
In the 1700 some guy wrote a novel about CC and that's where this lie comes from.
Enough people read it that it became "common knowledge" (a term for bullshit basically).
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"
Well that and the fact that history is written by the victors.
Al came out on top, it could have been left out of most things to respect him.

Yes I clarified what I was talking about, and you ignored it, again proof that you are full of shit, and only like to prove people wrong. Not that I should have had to clarify to begin with. When someone is using this as a supporting statement about interpretations, spelling (grammar) changes should make no difference whatsoever, only changes in definitions or the addition of new words could. Again you were just reading it close enough to find something to prove wrong, instead of taking my meaning into account.
I told you to do your own research because you have done nothing to earn the right to ask me for anything. Your refusal to even begin on the same page as me is the only thing that affects it and it only hurts your right to do so.
I would say you aren't, this whole post you made just further proved that the only reason you post is JUST to prove people wrong, which is a worthless endeavor in my opinion.



being reasonable would entail addressing people's own meanings, and not what you have twisted their words to mean

No, I want you to drop your attitude and quit acting like a know-it-all (you are once again twisting my words)

You mean manipulative, not reasonable.

I refuse to watch anything from someone who can't realize when they are wrong from the get-go.

No matter what the person said, as soon as you put your own interpretation of someone's words over their own, you are wrong, and assuredly not openminded.

The only thing anyone can claim with 100% certainty is what the meanings of their own words are.
Yet you argue with me about this more than anything else, which frankly makes talking to you give me a headache. The only time I can ever flat out say someone is wrong is in this scenario, yet it is here where you are most adamant in your points. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT OPEN-MINDED??

A library has sections that determine where things go. Following those rules is just keeping the order, not being stupidly controlled by the mundane.

I have no problem admitting I am wrong to someone who hasn't been manipulating my words from the get-go. psst. this doesn't include you at all.

The point is you use your own deductions as facts to disprove other people's deductions, and manipulate their words to tear them apart. In reality they are all just possibilities, but you are more interested in being right, than learning the truth. Your attitude is proof of this.

I have eliminated no possibilities on anything purposefully, it's only when we have everything on the table that we can adequately compare them and come up with the best choice. Since anyone can be wrong, and things love to change, even after deciding what I think something is, I don't eliminate the other possibilities. Hence why I discuss, not argue or debate, and why I only use proof of ignorance as proof of ignorance, and not that something is so - which per your own definition would not be an argument from ignorance. I can and do regard both sides of the majority of things valid, this is the very definition of being neutral - which I have maintained is my stance on a few things. Refusal to accept the truth doesn't make it not so.

It only talks about guam puerto rico... You must not have read my first post, I specifically listed these FEDERAL TERRITORIES in my first post.
And there is some evidence to back it up. I mean come on, there was a supporting link in the post you quoted to say I needed support. If I don't have evidence for every facet of it, well that is how theories work. Some facts, some deductions. (though the link I provided to the one guy has more info about the other parts in it on the main site) In reality I don't even want to discuss this (Because the jackass that shouldn't even be talking in this thread won't leave me alone), though I am willing to with anybody who does (besides him, he just hit my ignore list again, and isn't coming back off).

Miburo

Ah, forgive me then. I thought you were implying that the members of the Occupy movement were losers and whatnot. If all you're saying is that whiny losers looking for scapegoats are whiny losers looking for scapegoats then I can agree with that.

Everything I said still applies, even with the misspoken words on your end. No one intelligent is going to take conspiracy theories here seriously because of the inherent lack of evidence most conspiracy theories consist of. Even less will take it seriously if the person posting the theory actually goes out of his way to justify the lack of evidence on his end using this sections of the forums description. "Uh, okay. Then I'm not compelled to take this conspiracy theory seriously. Good day." is about all you could hope for unless you want to shoot the shit with fucking HR. In which case you're only going to learn how much of a dumbass HR is. Again, not really the best course of action one should take if he's all about learning. Debating in the debate section is still the best place here to have intelligent discussions. Besides OH, of course.

And still, much of the stuff you're posting in this thread contradicts the thirst for knowledge thing you're going on about. For example:

That's a shame, since it's actually a pretty good video. But who cares about well presented videos that illustrate very common pitfalls in obtaining greater understandings, evil mean guy Num posted it so let's not watch it out of spite! Quite scholarly of you, good sir.

And I'm still not sure what you're talking about when you say Num is wrong and too much of a jerkface to admit it. What was he wrong about, again?

almightywood

I only posted it because I thought someone might find it interesting.
I have already looked into it as much as I was willing, and found it not to my taste since I couldn't get it to work. That doesn't mean that someone else may not have been able to.
When anyone other than numinous requested evidence I pointed out citations (sloppy citations I will admit) , or gave a link. I simply didn't want to discuss it with him since he never even approached it as though he wanted to have a real discussion about it, he only wanted to disprove it.

This is kind of my problem with him, he doesn't respect my clarifications of my definitions, but he expects me to accept his at face value. I am no longer willing to make allowances for him, since he has never shown any inclination to do the same.
I can't consider it an intelligent discussion when it doesn't take into account the definition of the statement in question.

Well it basically all comes down to his insistence that saying you can't say that for sure is the same thing as saying the opposite is true. I have stated that I did not mean that when I said it. If this was a good theoretical discussion, it would be focused on the possibilities that statement brings about after some clarification of the initial statement. Instead we end up getting bogged down in semantics to the point where it's more like a lawyer trying a case.

To think that you have a valid argument against someone when you refuse to acknowledge their actual starting point is ludicrous in my opinion.

Numinous

Sorry for shortening quotes, but I had to to avoid a damn triple post

I’ll ask to everyone else, what does the final quote of the string I’ll post sound like? (I’ll remove the narutard terms since this is not the section to have them)

almightywood:
kael:
almightywood:
To me and kael (and logic, for that matter), it was an argument from ignorance. But since I’m so unable to see the “truth”, can someone kindly point what kind of argument is being made in that quote?

Yes, because using logic as it is it’s clearly something wrong.

Yes, because clarification =/= backpedaling. Here’s what was said after the fact:

Numinous:
almightywood:

Numinous:
almightwood:
Clarification means “to make clear”, it does not mean “to retreat from a position” like you clearly did. That would be backpedaling, my good sir.

There are more pages to the novel, but it can be pretty much resumed to me saying “Yes, you did” and you going “nuh-uh!”

Seeing yourself in the mirror, are we?

Then you’re a contradicting pussy. You said that you tried to use the theory to evade speeding tickets (that I still don’t know how they fit in this mess) and even researched on it and said it was backed up.

Just because you don’t explicitly say you consider the probability of this theory being high enough to be considered, it doesn’t mean you aren’t taking a stance of such.

Now that we know you don’t know your English all that well, if you were not to take a stance you’d either go with neutrality (“I don’t know”) or you’d present both sides of the issues (the conspiracy theory per se and what could falsify it). You did not.

If you bring something up and you proceed to defend it (blindly) after someone correctly refutes it as incorrect, you’re taking a stance in favor of what has been brought up. If you were truly dropping the trivia for the sake of dropping the trivia, as soon as someone discredits it with much more valid points, the correct response would be something on the lines of “oops, my bad, thanks for the correction.”, which was not your response.

If that “different” saying actually is the same as the previous one but in other words (clearer or more detailed). If you outright deny what you clearly have done, then you aren’t really taking away my justification to call on your shit.

This is just a barrel of laughs. First, if I piss you off so much, there’s the ignore list, that way those nasty “debates” can go away. Second, manipulative? Am I inducing you to something you don’t want to do or you’re doing it while blaming me for it? Last time I checked, my last name isn’t Yahweh and you love to divert blame off of you.

That mirror is looking nice, isn’t it?

It is so common that Google doesn’t even know it! You know, the same search engine that can fetch the most obscure of things. Really, finding a link to a gay furry slashfic of a 80’s cartoon somehow is easier that finding a link to this “common rumor” that doesn’t redirect to this very forum.

He was the president of the German Physics society in the same year he presented the theory of relativity, he won the 1921’s Nobel Prize of Physics and he won the Copley Medal of the Royal Society in 1925. I did not tell this once, not twice, this is the third fucking time I tell you this. There’s no logical way Albert Einstein was deemed crazy for the theory of relativity knowing the facts about his life.
Also, about the Christopher Columbus example, both stances (he discovered the word wasn’t flat vs. he didn’t) were acknowledged by many and, as you pointed out, there’s at least a canonical source of the (erroneous) stance of him discovering such fact. The stance of “Albert Einstein was in a loony bin” is, you guessed it, your creation. And you said “oh, it was some people who told me” to avoid being ridiculed for it.

__________________

Numinous

Second Part:

Roll the clip.

almightywood:
Numinous:
almightywood:

Numinous:
Then I proceeded to show you how much Portuguese changed and how English changed, in the only quantifiable (since he put the stakes with quantifiable terms, like “300 years ago”) way possible: grammar.

almightywood:
Here, you COMPLETELY IGNORE what I said in the first part of my post and whine how I’m not providing the prove you want (never remembering that you were the one making the positive claim).

Then I clarified (not backpedaling like you like to misinterpret “clarification”) what I said in my first post:

Numinous:
You’re the one full of shit, since you’re pulling factoids out of your ass frequently.

Argumentation 101: The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. I only can do research on the matter if some kind of evidence is presented. As you could assert, as soon as you linked me some form of evidence I did my research upon it and expressed what I found from my research. See, that’s how things work. Now don’t come with pussy comments on how morally superior you supposedly are to me.

Appealing to motive, are we? Don’t worry, I’ve got worst in this forum, you’re so PC about it that it doesn’t even bother me.

Humm, isn’t that the definition of “equitable”? Because “reasonable” does not entail that at all. You can be reasonable without being equitable and vice-versa.

But I’m not twisting your words, I’m just not stupid enough to fall for your silly excuses.

When I commit mistakes, I admit them. Ask anyone in this forum, Miburo even asked me once about it when someone made the exact same accusation. And that someone is KYF, who thinks reality isn’t real and stated much more asinine things along the way. If I were you, I wouldn’t want to be associated with that kind of people.

As for the attitude, do you know José Mourinho? It’s not a simple coincidence we share the same nationality.

The irony, it is so delicious it gives diabetes.

Or what the English language and logic dictate. But, of course, using logic for you is “lying” or “trolling”.

Watch the damn video, you clearly are using a misconception of open-mindedness.

Picking up the library example, there’s at least an amount of relevance to the section for it to be put there. I’m pretty sure the Twilight Saga isn’t put in the Mythology section, even if it has some mythology within it, it’s just not relevant enough.

The same case happens here. Nobody is actually expecting you to present a completely valid and irrefutable theory under the “conspiracy theory” section, but at least some substantial evidence would make it worthwhile. You just used smoked & mirrors to support your theory and you actually act offended when someone calls on your BS.

Such bigotry, for shame. I, in the other hand, would have no problem admitting I am wrong to even a compulsive liar or any person with an irregular thought, as long as they bring up valid points that disprove me I am willing to admit my mistakes. Everyone is entitled to refute me, just don’t expect me to consider all refutations valid.

Scientology can be excused by a thin thread of hair with that, but Creationism can’t. Evolution is fact, to deny it is to be an idiot.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?!

By Cthulhu, just because science is ever-changing (like it should be and that’s why I’m learning to be a scientist, to further the knowledge and see where things will leads us) it does not mean every theory/possibility is to be considered in the same light. There are theories and possibilities that cannot be valid since the facts/laws disproving them are simply too irrefutable for the contrary to be possible.

For example, perpetual motion machines (in a closed system) are impossible because the laws of thermodynamics clearly prove it so. The same thing can be said about Geocentrism, Alchemy and Creationism, along with other theories and possibilities. Science cannot be bothered with things that are clearly wrong.

That said, it’s not like science discards any theory that isn’t mainstream. As long as there’s some question that still hasn’t a fact/law to answer it, theories that answer it can be regarded. Except ones that involve metaphysics, but that’s another issue altogether.

But all this rambling leads to this point: logic is the foundation of science, and many proprieties of science reside in logic. If something is clearly illogical/fallacious points, it cannot be regarded as valid as actually valid points.

tl;dr: filter the possibilities if you are truly open-minded.

Proof of ignorance is when you only note there’s ignorance in the subject being talked. You pointed out the ignorance to support your claim, and that is argument of ignorance.

Being neutral implies you do not take any side of the issue, not that you deem both sides equally valid. You can’t take a side, even if not strongly about it, and backpedal your way by saying “I R NEUTRAL!” like you’re trying to do.

Also, to deem both sides equally valid is a sign of either indifference (which doesn’t make sense in your case, since you want to discuss the stuff) or of being a pussy.

Yes, I read and wow, you’re stupid. This still doesn’t equate as evidence of what you claimed and Federal Territories does not mean what you think it means. Federal Territory is any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America : the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Overseas Territories (and these 3 things were the only things mentioned in the site you linked), US embassies, military bases of the US in other countries and Guantanamo Bay’s Prison. Oh and some atolls that are wildlife refuges.

Last time I checked, military bases and Guantanamo do not respond to the US Congress at all, but rather to the Defense and Judicial Branches. And those military bases, along with embassies, need to consider some directives of the legislation of the countries they’re in to avoid international conflicts.

And even considering the Overseas Territories, American Samoa has a constitution of its own that has been put to practice since 1967, so no need for US Congress there. And even in the other territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc) have their own civil government, so their executive branch, along with the mainland US’ one, has a say on what the US Congress proclaims. So the only way the US Congress has exclusive control over Overseas Territories is by being every congress the other countries the US has a military base/embassy on, being America Samoa’s congress, being US government, being the US Supreme Court and being the Overseas Territories’ civil governments. Which obviously it isn’t.

Well, good for you, you actually did something instead of pussying. But that “again” and “coming back off” aren’t promising much.

__________________

Human Rasengan

Since everyone is on another tangent ..I remember something about the postal code abbreviations changing to the current system fucked some shit up .. bureaucratically that is.. and that's why we have those extra numbers in our zip code now. it was a part of some redistricting thing and if you go back to my other posts with the links you can see the guy in the interview say something about them redistricting america unconstitutionally .... this also plays a big part in census taking and the electoral college.. I think one of the grips was it moved lot of money to places where it hadn't been before.

If you guys would take as much fervor in dissecting this conspiracy theory as you are in this other thing you guys have going this could be a good topic to break down

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

Miburo

Honestly, I rather jab sharp things in my good eye than have a one-sided discussion about inane trivialities that would involve trying to explain a complex document like the United States Constitution to people I can't confidently say possess the comprehension skills necessary to grasp Green Eggs and Ham.

If some of you guys would spend as much time getting fucking smarter as you do posting balls out retarded shit on this forum then maybe people would actually enjoy having grown-up conversations with you and we could get some good discussions going. Just saying.

Mal

HOLY. FUCKING. SHIT.

The pursuit of knowledge can be simplified to this: That which can be proven false, cannot be true.

If you want to have a "real discussion," you must understand that discussion in the pursuit of knowledge is the only real discussion possible. Beliefs and opinions have no place in such discussion, only facts. Striving to disprove something, as Numinous has, results in exactly what you say you wanted: a real discussion.

You have your discussion, now discuss. No excuses, no whining, no opinions, just facts.