Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

David Icke lecture @ Wembley Arena, October 2012

The point was whether Icke contradicted himself, rather than whether his belief that the moon is a hologram is false. He could have the belief that the universe is holographic yet still use terms like 'hollow', 'sollid', 'liquid' to define those things as we experience them rather than as they are.

He can have the belief, but that doesn't make it non-contradictory. The holographic universe theory that he's badly mangled doesn't allow for the moon being both a hologram and a hollowed out planetoid. I guess that's too much logic for your raisin of a brain tho.
 
Have I claimed that I own it?
No, I'm remarking on the fact that you used it only after I did.

Do at least try to make your flailings relevant.
Apparently you can't take anything other than literally. It was a suggestion that the phrase is so common that your remark is in fact largely irrelevant. But didn't think I'd need to point that out. Obviously, I did.
 
He can have the belief, but that doesn't make it non-contradictory. The holographic universe theory that he's badly mangled doesn't allow for the moon being both a hologram and a hollowed out planetoid. I guess that's too much logic for your raisin of a brain tho.
Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?
 
Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?
He's arguing that the hollowed out moon bases are noumenal? Then how the fuck is he describing them oh brainy one?
 
Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?
This isn't his argument btw. You commit fraudery upon him. You do understand that point, don't you?
 
Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?

There's no point there to understand, it's waffle from one end to the other. Do you know what a hologram is? I don't care what Icke thinks it means, I want to know what you think it means.
 
Apparently you can't take anything other than literally. It was a suggestion that the phrase is so common that your remark is in fact largely irrelevant. But didn't think I'd need to point that out. Obviously, I did.

Wow, 20 minutes to come up with that self-justificatory bollocks? You're slipping!
 
How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!

So you know nothing about it, yet enough to stand by your assertion that its not anti-semitic?
 
There's no point there to understand, it's waffle from one end to the other. Do you know what a hologram is? I don't care what Icke thinks it means, I want to know what you think it means.
She's just argued that icke is outside of space and time. Really. That's excellent waffle
 
So you don't understand it. Fair enough!

I don't claim to be all that well-read on string theory and the more exotic corners of quantum cosmology. Icke does, and he's so far off the ball that he's not even within a 100-mile radius of the pitch. But I do know enough to know that what he's claiming would make batshit dry up in distaste.
 
faux pas - I'll admit I haven't kept up with every twist and turn of the hollow moon theme here. ;) However, you seem to be saying you maintain an old fashioned modernist distinction betwee 'reality' and subjective 'perception' - but go on to make a conscious choice in favour of the perception?? You know there's an objective truth out there, but choose to ignore it??
 
So you don't understand it. Fair enough!

Right, I promise this is my last word on the matter...look faux pas, what I don't get is this: why are you taking any interest of someone's theoretical etc contradictions, when said somone is a major league disseminator of virulently anti-Semitic material? Why would you care about anything they said when they've displayed their racist/bigoted etc credentials for all to see? Why??? I mean, would you even begin to entertain notorious racist/anti-Semite (name omitted - I'm not giving that fucker any "publicity") utterly barking "theories" on space travel and quantum physics?!

Anyway, enough from me.
 
I don't claim to be all that well-read on string theory and the more exotic corners of quantum cosmology. Icke does, and he's so far off the ball that he's not even within a 100-mile radius of the pitch. But I do know enough to know that what he's claiming would make batshit dry up in distaste.

See, that's the thing with giving it the blah blah blah about quantum phenomena. There's only a relatively small amount of people who can gainsay you, and even the ones who're leaders in their fields often say shit that, to the uninitiated (in quantum physics, not Icke-ism!), sounds as barefacedly bollocks as Icke's witterings. Great camouflage!
 
You've got me curious now Louis. Who is it that's said to be particularly resistant to mental illness?

I've gone back and checked my reference, the immunity being claimed is from depression. I'll get back with the explanation once I've heard from faux pas.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
However, you seem to be saying you maintain an old fashioned modernist distinction betwee 'reality' and subjective 'perception' - but go on to make a conscious choice in favour of the perception?? You know there's an objective truth out there, but choose to ignore it??
To be fair to Faux pas, s/he's only saying that if Icke thinks this then there's no contradiction
 
See, that's the thing with giving it the blah blah blah about quantum phenomena. There's only a relatively small amount of people who can gainsay you, and even the ones who're leaders in their fields often say shit that, to the uninitiated (in quantum physics, not Icke-ism!), sounds as barefacedly bollocks as Icke's witterings. Great camouflage!

Fucking Fritjof Capra has a lot to answer for.
 
To be fair to Faux pas, s/he's only saying that if Icke thinks this then there's no contradiction
We are getting dangerously close to discussing Ick'e epistemology :eek: - that's not a rabbit hole/hologram I want to fall down. :D
 
To be fair to Faux pas, s/he's only saying that if Icke thinks this then there's no contradiction
There is no basis for arguing that contradictions can be demonstrated ever in that line of argument. What sort of idiot thinks like that?

Anyway, her argument is that there is objective material reality that we can only perceive in terms of holograms (without saying why this may be case) except for Icke who has some grasp on this from outside of the space/time phenomenal etc way that stinking norms like us can only ever perceive things and so can accurately describe it in great detail.
 
Back
Top Bottom