David Icke on the Russell Brand show

[frogwoman]

It's how I would have wanted to go

There are worse ways to die

 

[Meltingpot]

And if you posted something credible and plausible you wouldn't have scorn heaped upon you.

Funny old world innit?

IMO I post plenty of stuff that's both of those, and I still get abuse from the likes of you. Funny, no.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

IMO I post plenty of stuff that's both of those, and I still get abuse from the likes of you. Funny, no.

Not on this thread you haven't. What are the likes of 8den by the way?

 

[Meltingpot]

Not on this thread you haven't.

I think I've been reasonable on the whole, and I hold my opinions on the matters being discussed pretty lightly. It's too bad the site I wanted to quote, in support of my proposition that Geller's feats of wire-bending have been filmed and not satisfactorily explained, has been removed but that's life.

For heaven's sakes, it's not an issue worth getting steamed up about in the world we live in now.

What are the likes of 8den by the way?

Anyone who initiates personal insults and abuse of posters in the course of a debate instead of sticking to the points being discussed.

At the end of the day, I can't change a board culture on my own and perhaps I have no right to try. If this is the way you want to do things on here, carry on; I'll just find other things to do with my time.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The likes of you are more suited to prison planet anyway.

Where the likes of you are defined as anyone who fails to even try to critically appraise their sources.

Or stay here and stop being so bloody sensitive, doesn't bother me either way.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

i dont think sending their young men and women off 2 countries that pose no threat 2 them 2 be blown apart is really in their interests, so it appears 2 me that the interests of us citizens and the us govt. arent one and the same.

telling in that hes probably got one fat bank account.

This '2' thing, is going to get old really fast.

 

[butchersapron]

It saves one(1) keystroke you freak.

 

[mikeinworthing]

It saves one(1) keystroke you freak.

In some cases 2 keystokes, i.e too/two.

 

[Meltingpot]

The likes of you are more suited to prison planet anyway.

Where the likes of you are defined as anyone who fails to even try to critically appraise their sources.

Don't actually care for that place (prison planet), it's even more of a one man show than David Icke's site is.

What's that they say about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence?

That's a fair point, but it overlooks a second variable; the cost of not heeding a warning coming from that source. The problem with conspiracy theories is that even if the risks of them being true are small, the costs you would incur if they were true and you chose not to heed their warnings are massive (failing to prevent the advent of a global fascist / "1984" type state).

It doesn't mean you accept what you say as gospel, but nor does it mean you dismiss them as nutters without at least being willing to put your preconceptions aside long enough to look squarely at what they're saying.

So, I think a case can be made for accepting a lower threshold of proof in order to start taking them seriously, than for something fairly trivial like whether or not Uri Geller is a hoaxer. He's a successful guy who kept a lot of people (including me) entertained during a bleak time in this country's history; power cuts, three day weeks etc.

Or stay here and stop being so bloody sensitive, doesn't bother me either way.

Fair enough, you've been OK towards me recently anyway. I have no argument with you.

 

[Jazzz]

Posters are generally only 'shouted down' after posters have patiently and politely asked for credible sources to back up their often-outstanding and incredible claims.

If the claims being made are the same ones that have already been discussed at phenomenal length many times over, you can hardly blame regulars for getting a bit exasperated.

I think what you mean is:

'post a conspiracy opinion and you will be besieged with endless request for sources, more sources (any source that supports your opinion will likely be derided as a 'conspiracy site') you will have the burden of proof thrust upon you (even if you were just saying you don't believe something), the ensuing argument will go on for absolutely ever and if you ever get anywhere you'll be asked to start again from the beginning and then editor (after his 14 millionth post - where does he get the energy from?) will have the chutzpah to claim that it is not him that's gone around in circles! Oh and there will be lashing of personal abuse along the way'

 

[frogwoman]

That's a fair point, but it overlooks a second variable; the cost of not heeding a warning coming from that source. The problem with conspiracy theories is that even if the risks of them being true are small, the costs you would incur if they were true and chose not to heed their warnings are massive (failing to prevent the advent of a global fascist state).

Oh purlease ... you're an intelligent guy why do you fall for this rubbish?

IT ISNT TRUE

none of it is true
it can't ... possibly .. be

We're more likely to sleepwalk into a fash state fuelled by simplistic paranoid hysteria of the type that says that the world is "controlled by the bankers who own all the world's money" (oh noez!!!) and people not even bothering to investigate how economic and political systems work than if we just ignore the conspiracy theorists' warnings and are sceptical about false prophets who promise everything and deliver nothing ... people have been warning about the tyranny of a world government and global fascism since the Biblical period and it hasn't happened yet, it is never going to happen

Its like Pascalls wager ... "if there is a god and you believe in him, you gain eternity in heaven, if there isn't a god and you believed in him anyway then you lose nothing, if you don't believe and there is no god you have lost nothing but if you don't believe and there is a god then you are GOING TO BURN IN ETERNAL HELL!!! so believe in god because that way you're being sensible and looking after your future!"

i'm sorry but that type of reasoning can't be used as a proof for anything ... no matter how appealing the idea of a global conspiracy of half-lizard, half-alien people who just sit around pulling the strings of all the world's governments, wanting to harm us and fulfil sacred missions is, it isn't fucking real, it is a damaging and simplistic view of the world and the idea that the world can be simplistically divided like that between "good people" (us) and "bad people" (the people who CONTROL THE WORLD!!!!) creates FAR more problems than it solves

I think any theory requires a very high burden of proof before anyone should beleive anything ... like I could say to you "we're going to be kidnapped by aliens and turned into slaves" - obviously the price of being turned into slaves and taken away from the planet earth is enormously great, but does that mean that you should give it a lower burden of proof than a belief that doesn't have such life threatening consequences ...

use your brain and think about it .... come on................

 

[butchersapron]

A bloke believed something in the past (that wasn't a consipracy and that was out in the open if jazzz wants the historical argement) that was obvious and that became true. Therefore all conspiracy theories are true and people like jazzz are visionaries.

 

[longdog]

That's a fair point, but it overlooks a second variable; the cost of not heeding a warning coming from that source. The problem with conspiracy theories is that even if the risks of them being true are small, the costs you would incur if they were true and you chose not to heed their warnings are massive (failing to prevent the advent of a global fascist / "1984" type state).

It doesn't mean you accept what you say as gospel, but nor does it mean you dismiss them as nutters without at least being willing to put your preconceptions aside long enough to look squarely at what they're saying.

While it's fair that one should always balance the chance of a warning having some credibility against possible consequences, giving credence to a 'warning' emanating from the likes of Prison Planet or David Icke is going too far.

I suppose there is the possibility that even they are right now and again, a stopped clock is still right twice a day after all. However, given the track record of such CT theorists and their outlandish claims it's more than reasonable to dismiss them as the nutters they are, to do otherwise would involve giving all manner of crackpot nonsense a scrutiny which it doesn't deserve.

Should I "put [my] preconceptions aside long enough to look squarely at what they're saying."? That depends. Nothing is going to change the fact that people who believe in a reptilian plot to take over the word are nutters. That's not a preconception, that's a fact.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't actually care for that place (prison planet), it's even more of a one man show than David Icke's site is.

That's a fair point, but it overlooks a second variable; the cost of not heeding a warning coming from that source. The problem with conspiracy theories is that even if the risks of them being true are small, the costs you would incur if they were true and you chose not to heed their warnings are massive (failing to prevent the advent of a global fascist / "1984" type state).

Any stats on the cost of ignoring these warnings?

 

[longdog]

Oh purlease ... you're an intelligent guy why do you fall for this rubbish?

IT ISNT TRUE

none of it is true
it can't ... possibly .. be

We're more likely to sleepwalk into a fash state fuelled by simplistic paranoid hysteria of the type that says that the world is "controlled by the bankers who own all the world's money" (oh noez!!!) and people not even bothering to investigate how economic and political systems work than if we just ignore the conspiracy theorists' warnings and are sceptical about false prophets who promise everything and deliver nothing ... people have been warning about the tyranny of a world government and global fascism since the Biblical period and it hasn't happened yet, it is never going to happen

Its like Pascalls wager ... "if there is a god and you believe in him, you gain eternity in heaven, if there isn't a god and you believed in him anyway then you lose nothing, if you don't believe and there is no god you have lost nothing but if you don't believe and there is a god then you are GOING TO BURN IN ETERNAL HELL!!! so believe in god because that way you're being sensible and looking after your future!"

i'm sorry but that type of reasoning can't be used as a proof for anything ... no matter how appealing the idea of a global conspiracy of half-lizard, half-alien people who just sit around pulling the strings of all the world's governments, wanting to harm us and fulfil sacred missions is, it isn't fucking real, it is a damaging and simplistic view of the world and the idea that the world can be simplistically divided like that between "good people" (us) and "bad people" (the people who CONTROL THE WORLD!!!!) creates FAR more problems than it solves

I think any theory requires a very high burden of proof before anyone should beleive anything ... like I could say to you "we're going to be kidnapped by aliens and turned into slaves" - obviously the price of being turned into slaves and taken away from the planet earth is enormously great, but does that mean that you should give it a lower burden of proof than a belief that doesn't have such life threatening consequences ...

use your brain and think about it .... come on................

<standing ovation>

You're on a roll on this thread ain't you froggy

 

[8den]

I think what you mean is:

'post a conspiracy opinion and you will be besieged with endless request for sources, more sources (any source that supports your opinion will likely be derided as a 'conspiracy site')

No quoting sites like the AFP is a conspiracy site, or misrepresenting something from a credible source. Thats what do you Jazzz, thats why your held in near universal contempt here.

IMO I post plenty of stuff that's both of those, and I still get abuse from the likes of you. Funny, no.

Yeah I think on the whole people here think you've posted anything credible or plausible, or backed up with facts, and people here are tired of that kind of nonsense.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh purlease ... you're an intelligent guy why do you fall for this rubbish?

IT ISNT TRUE

none of it is true
it can't ... possibly .. be

We're more likely to sleepwalk into a fash state fuelled by simplistic paranoid hysteria of the type that says that the world is "controlled by the bankers who own all the world's money" (oh noez!!!) and people not even bothering to investigate how economic and political systems work than if we just ignore the conspiracy theorists' warnings and are sceptical about false prophets who promise everything and deliver nothing ... people have been warning about the tyranny of a world government and global fascism since the Biblical period and it hasn't happened yet, it is never going to happen

Its like Pascalls wager ... "if there is a god and you believe in him, you gain eternity in heaven, if there isn't a god and you believed in him anyway then you lose nothing, if you don't believe and there is no god you have lost nothing but if you don't believe and there is a god then you are GOING TO BURN IN ETERNAL HELL!!! so believe in god because that way you're being sensible and looking after your future!"

i'm sorry but that type of reasoning can't be used as a proof for anything ... no matter how appealing the idea of a global conspiracy of half-lizard, half-alien people who just sit around pulling the strings of all the world's governments, wanting to harm us and fulfil sacred missions is, it isn't fucking real, it is a damaging and simplistic view of the world and the idea that the world can be simplistically divided like that between "good people" (us) and "bad people" (the people who CONTROL THE WORLD!!!!) creates FAR more problems than it solves

I think any theory requires a very high burden of proof before anyone should beleive anything ... like I could say to you "we're going to be kidnapped by aliens and turned into slaves" - obviously the price of being turned into slaves and taken away from the planet earth is enormously great, but does that mean that you should give it a lower burden of proof than a belief that doesn't have such life threatening consequences ...

use your brain and think about it .... come on................

<claps> most entertaining froggy. not bad.

However, I fancy you are completely making up the paragraph about a global government being warned about since 'biblical times' - and fascist states have appeared several times throughout history to populations that clearly weren't expecting them or they would have either got the fuck out or stopped them. No? Or how do people become victims of such things?

And the Pascal's wager analogy, although apt, doesn't quite nullify the argument made. You don't have to fully believe something is certainly happening to admit the possibility and want cast-iron safeguards against it.

The threat of a global fascist superstate is indeed one such worth guarding against in the strongest possible terms. Hence, it is wise to regard attempts by our leaders to remove age-old safeguards against abuses of power by the state with the greatest concern.

 

[Meltingpot]

And the Pascal's wager analogy, although apt, doesn't quite nullify the argument made. You don't have to fully believe something is certainly happening to admit the possibility and want cast-iron safeguards against it.

The threat of a global fascist superstate is indeed one such worth guarding against in the strongest possible terms. Hence, it is wise to regard attempts by our leaders to remove age-old safeguards against abuses of power by the state with the greatest concern.

I agree with Jazzz here. Anyone who can't see that not only our government but the US's have indeed removed age old safeguards against abuses of power hasn't been reading the news very carefully. If you don't want to read David Icke or Alex Jones etc on this subject, try Henry Porter in the Guardian.

 

[longdog]

You don't have to fully believe something is certainly happening to admit the possibility and want cast-iron safeguards against it.

I'm marvelling at the way you manage to get 'believe', 'certainly' and 'possibility' shoehorned in to one sentence

Something maybe, the problem is CT-ers believe every cock-and-bull nonsense.

I can't give you a cast-iron safeguard against LGMs coming and stealing your socks tonight. That's a possibility after all.

 

[frogwoman]

Erm - the book of revelation - every christian will have to wear the number of the beast, and that sort of stuff? The countless cults in Jerusalem around about Jesus's time saying that their leader was the messiah?

And you are right there have been loads of fascist states but they didn't come about because of a secret society controlling everything that happened. They came about for historical and social reasons and most of them would not have been able to do what they did were it not for a significant degree of public support even if their supporters were not in the majority.

And what i've been saying all along in this thread isn't that conspiracies don't exist because they most certainly do ... it's the fact that there CANNOT BE a "one world conspiracy" because there are so many different opposing interests in the world and even among the ruling class, to make this totally impossible. There are loads of little conspiracies, not one big one.

 

[mikeinworthing]

I'm marvelling at the way you manage to get 'believe', 'certainly' and 'possibility' shoehorned in to one sentence

Jazzz at work...

 

[butchersapron]

I agree with Jazzz here. Anyone who can't see that not only our government but the US's have indeed removed age old safeguards against abuses of power hasn't been reading the news very carefully. If you don't want to read David Icke or Alex Jones etc on this subject, try Henry Porter in the Guardian.

What does Mr Porter say? That a new new nazis 1984 age is here?
Or that civil liberties that were only ever honoured in the breach have been removed?

Honestly, it's like you people believed the US and elites previously operated according to rules that have just been torn up.

 

[Meltingpot]

I'm marvelling at the way you manage to get 'believe', 'certainly' and 'possibility' shoehorned in to one sentence

Unfair IMO, there are two separate clauses in that sentence which counterpoint one another. Look again;

Clause 1/

You don't have to fully believe something is certainly happening

in order to:

Clause 2

(implied you) admit the possibility and want cast-iron safeguards against it.

No inconsistencies there, it's a perfectly sensible sentence.

 

[8den]

Tell you what Melting pot why don't you list all the plausible and credible stuff you've posted on this forum.

 

[fogbat]

<standing ovation>

You're on a roll on this thread ain't you froggy

Hell yes.

 

[Meltingpot]

What does Mr Porter say? That a new new nazis 1984 age is here?
Or that civil liberties that were only ever honoured in the breach have been removed?

Honestly, it's like you people believed the US and elites previously operated according to rules that have just been torn up.

No, but there have always been checks and balances before. We had Nixon, but we also had Watergate. Now we've got Blair poncing around America charging $200,000 a speech dexpite being a liar (about Iraq) on at least as big a scale as Nixon was. And no one does anything about it.

Another example. We managed fine without ID cards for 60 years (they were abolished in 1954, if memory serves, because the British public wouldn't stand for them). Now they're back on the agenda again. Why?

 

[Meltingpot]

Tell you what Meltingpot why don't you list all the plausible and credible stuff you've posted on this forum.

This forum has a search function As far as I'm concerned my posts always reflect what I consider to be true, whether I'm posting about music, technology, relationships, politics or philosophy.

 

[butchersapron]

No, but there have always been checks and balances before. We had Nixon, but we also had Watergate. Now we've got Blair poncing around America charging $200,000 a speech dexpite being a liar (about Iraq) on at least as big a scale as Nixon was. And no one does anything about it.

Another example. We managed fine without ID cards for 60 years (they were abolished in 1954, if memory serves, because the British public wouldn't stand for them). Now they're back on the agenda again. Why?

What's changed then? You've not said that anything has. What are you actually saying?

 

[Meltingpot]

Tell you what Melting pot why don't you list all the plausible and credible stuff you've posted on this forum.

Anyway you're missing the point here. I'm not saying you should agree with me or even take what I say seriously, merely not to indulge in gratuitous abuse. If you don't like my posts this board has an "ignore" function.

 

[Meltingpot]

What's changed then? You've not said that anything has. What are you actually saying?

Yes I am saying things have changed, from;

1/ a time when leaders were held accountable for their actions and impeached if they were found to have lied, to one in which no action is taken when both a prime minister and a president lied us into an illegal war, and;

2 / one in which ID cards were seen as a temporary measure during wartime and discarded soon afterwards, to one in which they're being introduced without any explanation which makes sense (and I've heard ministers try to justify them).

I'm out of here.