[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
and assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals
[/quote]
Wanna take this outside?[/quote]
Actions have consequences.
I guess voting for people that conspire theories that gun control is the solution to mass killings makes such persons lose credibility.
It is just the way the world works.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
and assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals
[/quote]
Wanna take this outside?[/quote]
Actions have consequences.
I guess voting for people that conspire theories that gun control is the solution to mass killings makes such persons lose credibility.
It is just the way the world works.
[/quote]
Huh? I was joking about internet toughness.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
and assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals
[/quote]
Wanna take this outside?[/quote]
Actions have consequences.
I guess voting for people that conspire theories that gun control is the solution to mass killings makes such persons lose credibility.
It is just the way the world works.
[/quote]
Eh wtf?
And GTFO with the theory that most liberals are physical cowards. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that its the other way more than anything. Take most of the keyboard warriors here and let them spend a day in the ghetto and see how they fare. I’d imagine most of them would be crying to mama before the day is out.
I’d imagine the vast majority of most politicians or people in general are physical cowards. There are few examples on both sides of bravery. And bravery isn’t always in combat. Nonviolent protestors in the face of violent opposition are brave in my opinion. Shit little poofs(and I know he’s not liberal) like Anderson Cooper are pretty brave to be standing in a combat zone reporting with no weapons.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
You literally created an argument which he did not (or if he did then I missed it)
[/quote]
You are either wrong or playing dumb. JP obviously would have called me on it if I had been attacking a position he never intended to advocate (or discuss, at least). Instead, he said that my questions were unanswerable (which, if you’re still being obtuse, does not mean that they are inappropriate).
Again–figure things out for yourself. If you’d like to present a theory on what exactly JP meant to aver, do so by all means. Otherwise…[/quote]
No I wouldn’t have. It was an obvious attempt to sidetrack my argument, and I didn’t play along. Some of us have outgrown the “nuh-uh” “uh-huh” game.
I am certain that it was hoaxed to a degree. I don’t know about the kids, except that one of the 6yo girls who was supposedly killed ended up in a picture with Obama after the fact. I have seen the video footage of Gene Rosen practicing his lines. I have seen the video of Robbie Parker getting into character. I saw the video of Allyson Wyatt wiping away non-existent tears.
I know that something doesn’t add up, but I never pretended to know the whole truth.
Do you see the irony in your argument? You presume to know, through inference, what I’m thinking and then make claims about me based on a false inference that you dreamed up.
So who’s the nut, here?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
You literally created an argument which he did not (or if he did then I missed it)
[/quote]
You are either wrong or playing dumb. JP obviously would have called me on it if I had been attacking a position he never intended to advocate (or discuss, at least). Instead, he said that my questions were unanswerable (which, if you’re still being obtuse, does not mean that they are inappropriate).
Again–figure things out for yourself. If you’d like to present a theory on what exactly JP meant to aver, do so by all means. Otherwise…[/quote]
No I wouldn’t have. It was an obvious attempt to sidetrack my argument, and I didn’t play along. Some of us have outgrown the “nuh-uh” “uh-huh” game.
I am certain that it was hoaxed to a degree. I don’t know about the kids, except that one of the 6yo girls who was supposedly killed ended up in a picture with Obama after the fact. I have seen the video footage of Gene Rosen practicing his lines. I have seen the video of Robbie Parker getting into character. I saw the video of Allyson Wyatt wiping away non-existent tears.
I know that something doesn’t add up, but I never pretended to know the whole truth.
Do you see the irony in your argument? You presume to know, through inference, what I’m thinking and then make claims about me based on a false inference that you dreamed up.
So who’s the nut, here?[/quote]
Your list of things “that don’t add up” leads to the speculation that the shooting was a hoax (which you’ve just said you believe).
Your earlier mention of actors (“I could pull this off with a handful of actors” or some such nonsense) leads to the speculation that actors were hired to help in the ruse.
Your refusal to accept the notion that two sisters bear resemblance to each other–you belief, that is, that the girl in the photograph with Obama is the same one allegedly killed–leads to the speculation that children who we’ve been told are dead are actually not. [As an aside: would the coordinator of a colossal and sinister conspiracy allow himself to be photographed with one of the people whose faked death is the cornerstone of the conspiracy? No. Not in real life. But paranoid minds have little connection with real life.]
My list of questions (how is the silence of the actors to be assured? How were they approached? Where are the children who are pretending to be dead? Will they be hidden from their aunts and uncles forever?) is born directly of this–your–speculation
In other words, it is the natural criticism of the speculation you’re peddling (or perhaps I should say hinting at peddling, because you’re dancing around it like a ballerina). Pretending otherwise does nothing but make you out to be a fool–though I daresay you’ve already accomplished that particular feat.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your list of things “that don’t add up” lead to the speculation that the shooting was a hoax (which you’ve just said you believe).[/quote]
To a certain extent. Quit leaving out key words and phrases.
False inference. Hypothetical does not equal accusation.
True nonetheless. The footage of Gene Rosen perfecting his schtick and Parker getting into character are clear evidence.
The surviving sisters are 3 and 4. The kid in the Obama pic does not look like a 4yo. She looks a good bit older than my almost-5yo.
You assume that I assume he coordinated it. He may not have even known.
Never claimed to know any of that. As a matter of fact, I specifically stated that those questions are impossible for me to answer.
[quote]In other words, it is the natural criticism of the speculation you’re peddling (or perhaps I should say hinting at peddling, because you’re dancing around it like a ballerina). Pretending otherwise does nothing but make you out to be a fool–though I daresay you’ve already accomplished that particular feat.
[/quote]
In your mind, maybe. Your assumption of me ‘dancing like a ballerina’ is really just the fact that what I was saying is not what you thought I was saying.
You assumed and jumped to conclusions, and then projected those conclusions onto me.
Wait… isn’t that what tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutbags do?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your list of things “that don’t add up” lead to the speculation that the shooting was a hoax (which you’ve just said you believe).[/quote]
To a certain extent. Quit leaving out key words and phrases.
False inference. Hypothetical does not equal accusation.
True nonetheless. The footage of Gene Rosen perfecting his schtick and Parker getting into character are clear evidence.
The surviving sisters are 3 and 4. The kid in the Obama pic does not look like a 4yo. She looks a good bit older than my almost-5yo.
You assume that I assume he coordinated it. He may not have even known.
Never claimed to know any of that. As a matter of fact, I specifically stated that those questions are impossible for me to answer.
[quote]In other words, it is the natural criticism of the speculation you’re peddling (or perhaps I should say hinting at peddling, because you’re dancing around it like a ballerina). Pretending otherwise does nothing but make you out to be a fool–though I daresay you’ve already accomplished that particular feat.
[/quote]
In your mind, maybe. Your assumption of me ‘dancing like a ballerina’ is really just the fact that what I was saying is not what you thought I was saying.
You assumed and jumped to conclusions, and then projected those conclusions onto me.
Wait… isn’t that what tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutbags do?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your list of things “that don’t add up” lead to the speculation that the shooting was a hoax (which you’ve just said you believe).[/quote]
To a certain extent. Quit leaving out key words and phrases.
False inference. Hypothetical does not equal accusation.
True nonetheless. The footage of Gene Rosen perfecting his schtick and Parker getting into character are clear evidence.
The surviving sisters are 3 and 4. The kid in the Obama pic does not look like a 4yo. She looks a good bit older than my almost-5yo.
You assume that I assume he coordinated it. He may not have even known.
Never claimed to know any of that. As a matter of fact, I specifically stated that those questions are impossible for me to answer.
[quote]In other words, it is the natural criticism of the speculation you’re peddling (or perhaps I should say hinting at peddling, because you’re dancing around it like a ballerina). Pretending otherwise does nothing but make you out to be a fool–though I daresay you’ve already accomplished that particular feat.
[/quote]
In your mind, maybe. Your assumption of me ‘dancing like a ballerina’ is really just the fact that what I was saying is not what you thought I was saying.
You assumed and jumped to conclusions, and then projected those conclusions onto me.
Wait… isn’t that what tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutbags do?[/quote]
“What I was saying is not what you thought I was saying.”
Good God. You literally just confirmed that my characterizations of your arguments (or speculations or whatever you want to call them) were all accurate save for the fact that perhaps you don’t think Obama knew about it–“The footage of Gene Rosen perfecting his schtick and Parker getting into character are clear evidence” … that actors were hired (check box number 1); “The surviving sisters are 3 and 4. The kid in the Obama pic does not look like a 4yo. She looks a good bit older than my almost-5yo” (check box number 2).
So, again and for the last time:
You suggest that actors were involved.
You suggest that children we believe to be dead are actually alive.
[Don’t say you’re not saying this please, because you just fucking did.]
Therefore, when I ask how the actors were approached and how their silence is to be assured and where the children are being hidden and whether or not they’ll be hidden for life, I’m asking the natural questions that arise from the position that you are holding. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am not attacking a straw-man. I am criticizing points being raised by you by asking questions that can in no possible universe be characterized as off-topic, inappropriate, irrelevant, misdirected, or any other nonsense–because they are the simple questions that arise in the mind of a rational human being when he is confronted with the fantastically improbable poppycock that you’re peddling.
Now, you say you can’t answer the questions. I know you can’t, that’s why I asked them. Case closed.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
and assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals
[/quote]
Wanna take this outside?[/quote]
Actions have consequences.
I guess voting for people that conspire theories that gun control is the solution to mass killings makes such persons lose credibility.
It is just the way the world works.
[/quote]
Huh? I was joking about internet toughness.[/quote]
I misunderstood you completely.
Did not realize you were joking - I’m used to you being ultra serious.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Therefore, when I ask how the actors were approached and how their silence is to be assured and where the children are being hidden and whether or not they’ll be hidden for life, I’m asking the natural questions that arise from the position that you are holding. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am not attacking a straw-man. I am criticizing points being raised by you by asking questions that can in no possible universe be characterized as off-topic, inappropriate, irrelevant, misdirected, or any other nonsense–because they are the simple questions that arise in the mind of a rational human being when he is confronted with the fantastically improbable poppycock that you’re peddling.
Now, you say you can’t answer the questions. I know you can’t, that’s why I asked them. Case closed.
[/quote]
So because of a couple of questions I can’t answer, the other evidence is null and void?
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
~Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation~
I hate these people:
Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exemp
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Therefore, when I ask how the actors were approached and how their silence is to be assured and where the children are being hidden and whether or not they’ll be hidden for life, I’m asking the natural questions that arise from the position that you are holding. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am not attacking a straw-man. I am criticizing points being raised by you by asking questions that can in no possible universe be characterized as off-topic, inappropriate, irrelevant, misdirected, or any other nonsense–because they are the simple questions that arise in the mind of a rational human being when he is confronted with the fantastically improbable poppycock that you’re peddling.
Now, you say you can’t answer the questions. I know you can’t, that’s why I asked them. Case closed.
[/quote]
So because of a couple of questions I can’t answer, the other evidence is null and void?
[/quote]
You haven’t proferred anything that could be classified as ‘evidence.’ You have posted claims from someone on the internet that some girl in a photo looks like a girl that was killed and that you think some of the relatives look like they’re ‘getting into the part’ or something. How do you get from that to an elaborate conspiracy to fake a shooting spree involving actors and presumably local, state and federal law enforcement, politicians, emergency workers, people who worked at the school, private individuals etc.? You realise that a medical professional would rightfully assess you as ‘experiencing delusional thought processes?’
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Therefore, when I ask how the actors were approached and how their silence is to be assured and where the children are being hidden and whether or not they’ll be hidden for life, I’m asking the natural questions that arise from the position that you are holding. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am not attacking a straw-man. I am criticizing points being raised by you by asking questions that can in no possible universe be characterized as off-topic, inappropriate, irrelevant, misdirected, or any other nonsense–because they are the simple questions that arise in the mind of a rational human being when he is confronted with the fantastically improbable poppycock that you’re peddling.
Now, you say you can’t answer the questions. I know you can’t, that’s why I asked them. Case closed.
[/quote]
So because of a couple of questions I can’t answer, the other evidence is null and void?
[/quote]
Of course implausibility and doubt do not render evidence null and void. Evidence is evidence.
Your problem, as Sexmachine explained above, is that you don’t have evidence. You have correctly observed that real life is messy and adheres to no discernible narrative structure–that the lights and cameras of CNN and FOX can render awkward even the simplest expression of grief (you try acting natural with camera in your face and a satellite beaming its images to an audience of millions); that confusion is inherent to reporting in general and endemic to the horse-race that has become 24-hour news coverage of catastrophe; that the maxim that “truth is stranger than fiction” is popular for a good reason.
But you’ve taken these rather banal observations and twisted them into something both laughably implausible and disturbingly delusional. In other words, you’ve taken a strange leap from idiosyncratic minutiae to enormous, sinister conspiracy and in doing so have been forced to shed every last ounce of human reason.
If you honestly think that “this girl in this picture is bigger than my five-year-old” casts enough doubt to even budge the scales of certainty, you do not understand how this works.
Conspiracy theory is almost always reverse scientific method: draw a conclusion based on paranoia and wishful thinking, gather what scraps of “evidence” can be found among the gutters and drains of public information, ignore implausibility and discount criticism as “something that just can’t be answered.”
The sad thing about all this is that, unlike false-flag theories about events long past, your particular brand of paranoia compels you to sling mud upon mothers and fathers whose children have scarcely been in the ground for a month.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
~Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation~[/quote]
Also known as “a list, written by a paranoid nutjob, that you can quote in order to faintly rebuff the overwhelming evidence of your own insanity.”