Butthurt Street

**uranus** · 02-12-2016

I admit to some inflammatory writing here directed specifically at you, however I disagree with your claim that I was merely trolling. I believe my repeated efforts insisting on establishing some common ground as to the nature of logic will attest to that. I think my responses are more accurately described as "dismissive" and "pointed teasing" with some stray satire in the hope that you would acquiesce to the discipline of logic at some point.

I'm sorry that you take umbrage at my insistence on the use of logic rather than take the initiative to actually adopt the use of logic. The reason I tried so hard to help you learn about the concepts of logic in the early days was to help you sort through the piles of crap claims littering the glorious disinformation superhighway called the internet and to help you present a viable case. Countering any perceived lack of logic with an equal or greater lack of logical thought is not a sound strategy to convince anyone but those predisposed to blindly accepting unsubstantiated claims.

I am a devoutly dedicated skeptic and I try to apply skepticism to any claim... as you may have noticed.

Here's a video that touches on a lot of what I'm talking about. I genuinely hope you're able to apply that open mind which burdens you so.

**DontWorryBeHappy** · 02-12-2016

@sumbich @TimTim @uranus

It's good to see you establishing a common ground now.

Thesis+antithesis=synthesis? We'll see.

**TimTim** · 02-12-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

I think its an interesting take thinking scientists as politicians can produce a better world, but in a sense - that's what we started out with, and its assuming a certain moral standard for the scientists and engineers going forward in perpetuity - assuming they will not similarly sell themselves out to the highest bidders (sooner, or later...) - basically what got us to this point of fuckery in the first place.

Right. What I'm leaning towards is a meritocracy, which would prevent (or lessen the effects of) people from bidding in the first place. How would that work exactly? I'm not sure. I am sure it's possible though, and would definitely be better than what we currently have - i.e., a political circus where highly under-qualified people get elected simply because they're able to manipulate the public by appealing to their emotions and/or because they're in the pockets of corporations. Intelligence (the ability to think logically) is inherently quantifiable (despite what SJW idiots want people to think lol), so perhaps the best thing to do would be to appoint people to office who meet some minimum level of intelligence and who have proven they have an aptitude for selflessly improving the world.

**sumbich** · 02-12-2016

Originally Posted by uranus

I am a devoutly dedicated skeptic and I try to apply skepticism to any claim... as you may have noticed.

its all good, its too easy to sling shit on the internet. I can appreciate the application of skepticism to any claim....however, I havent seen you do that once with any of the official stories....or tall tales, however you wish to define those.

Now, if it was the case where the official stories were parsed for illogic and then had my logic compared to it in light of the illogical in the official stories, I firmly believe a different picture would have been painted. Its not logical to begin with my assessment, because context is necessitated in regards to the illogical aspects of the official stories. At that point, we've got somewhere to go. But treating what I'm writing as if the official story is completely coherent and logical as a starting point, is immediate failure of procedure right there. Bataclan was a difficult point to start such a conversation...which is why I wound up touching on other false flags like the Hebdo attack policeman obviously not being shot in the head, or pointing out that the tsarnevs left with the same backpacks they arrived with, or the dumb blonde getting "shot" "live on tv" being examples of where the official story is directly contradicted by video evidence. Such observations are no failures of logic, they are observing recorded events and then noting that it completely disagrees with what the news and officially accepted theories are. Baseball games dont start in the 3rd or 4th inning, nor does hockey begin with the second period...origin is relevant.

Originally Posted by TimTim

Right. What I'm leaning towards is a meritocracy, which would prevent (or lessen the effects of) people from bidding in the first place. How would that work exactly? I'm not sure. I am sure it's possible though, and would definitely be better than what we currently have - i.e., a political circus where highly under-qualified people get elected simply because they're able to manipulate the public by appealing to their emotions and/or because they're in the pockets of corporations. Intelligence (the ability to think logically) is inherently quantifiable (despite what SJW idiots want people to think lol), so perhaps the best thing to do would be to appoint people to office who meet some minimum level of intelligence and who have proven they have an aptitude for selflessly improving the world.

I think that's another thing that sounds good in theory but has issues where the rubber meets the road. I tend to think along the lines of "what's realistically possible that can be done to eliminate central banking and its small group of owners." I believe that all this fuckery emanates from the monopolization, manipulation, and eventual destruction of the currency. But that is something to be worked toward and too quick or obvious an attempt would be thwarted like trying to shoot the moon right out the gate in hearts. Those who have their positions of privilege are not wont to give them up. I am not completely sure our government is even fixable, given the stranglehold upon it.

Really, I think the only way to "fix" things is to start rolling back everything that's been done that goes contrary to the constitution - if we ever want to return to the country's roots. The federal "law" books need to be gone over with a fine toothed comb, and if its determined that the fedgov didnt have the authority to initiate the action, it should be immediately stricken from the books of law. It should begin with the 16th amendment and the federal reserve act - imo, ALL federal reserve assets should be immediately seized by the government, their licenses of operation stripped and the functions returned to the treasury where they belong. Fedgov agencies created without the support of the constitution should be eliminated. Byebye DHS, NSA, CIA, BLM, FBI, Depts of Energy, Education, the IRS; any "federal" entity that is also a foreign entity - gone, all of them.

That'd be a start...but the issue is, the money changers have purchased the temple, and all of the priests are beholden to the money changers - to the point where if J showed up, it'd be the priests primarily tasked with convincing everyone he was a bastard and not to be listened to; most of the congregation agreeing.

It'll be curious seeing how americans react to negative interest rates...

**uranus** · 02-12-2016

So it's best to redefine the discipline of logic to fit our preconceived conclusion?

Originally Posted by uranus

Countering any perceived lack of logic with an equal or greater lack of logical thought is not a sound strategy

That's my "official�" story and I'm sticking to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe this will help some grasp the concept while enjoying some entertainment:

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by DontWorryBeHappy

Thesis+antithesis=synthesis?

That would be nice but I won't hold my breath waiting for the expected sum.

**sumbich** · 02-13-2016

Originally Posted by uranus

So it's best to redefine the discipline of logic to fit our preconceived conclusion?

That's my "official�" story and I'm sticking to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe this will help some grasp the concept while enjoying some entertainment:

- - - Updated - - -

That would be nice but I won't hold my breath waiting for the expected sum.

hehe...ok bro, get specific, you can talk of generalities all you want and assert this or that, but if something is illogical, say what it is. the biggest point is that the official story fails the logic test and prompts clarification - I'm presenting likely alternatives. even with the case of 911, I cant say precisely what combination of methods was used to bring those buildings down, but I can say with 110% certainty that plane crash & jet fuel was by no means even remotely the primary causative factor. the dumb blonde getting shot, what's illogical about pointing out the fakeness of the gun and the woman's reaction? the scene was totally illogical as presented by the media and directly contradicted. the boston story as presented has plenty of evidence that shows those kids didnt do it and never had in their possession those black bags with the silver reflective squares that blew up.

so please... we've covered...er, I've covered quite a few different instances of msm illogic. and presented interpretations more consistent with facts and evidence, by and large. get a little more specific, if its not too much trouble. if you're going to say an assertion of mine is illogical, what is it and why is it illogical, and we can proceed from there so there are no misunderstandings.

that vid was funny - beliefs, depending on their application and situation, can change, or not change, reality. e.g. with some of the physioenergetic things I spoke of a while back - a disbelieving mindset will basically prevent the energy from coalescing properly. but that the same time, there are very real "physiospiritual friction coefficients" that mere belief will not get you past. spiritual power is not a gift from heaven (wish I could remember the source in the ancient chinese classics) - it is something deliberately cultivated. no such thing as spiritual welfare, you either put in the work or you dont make the achievement. many stories of the buddha gloss over the fact that he spent such a preposterous amount of time in cultivation and practicing austerities before things clicked - once it did, "it was easy as turning one's hands over" but one shouldnt lessen the importance of the prior work that led to those conditions arising and presenting the possibility in the first place.

so as I see it, anyone that thinks they can get spiritual powers or psychic abilities just by "knowing one already has them" has about as much leadership potential as the marching band in animal house.

caveat to the illusion of timelines, but that's entering the metaphysical arena.

that said, it was kinda funny that the guy happened to guess pretty closely, everything that lady had drawn. coincidence? beginners luck? or does he really have teh psychicz!?

hm...the "spiritual conversion".....=willing participant. what's an atheist doing there, if not questioning their atheism? lol.

hands, and the inner hug...sympathetic resonance there already. if this guy's a magician then having done a ton of "work" with his hands in such a manner...hehe, and everyone that didnt believe in such things got up and left. next, another willing participant...omg, fields exist!

just got something displayed that was beyond his worldview, and it changed. I could post up images of the body's meridians and describe the mechanisms by which this takes place along with the quasi yinyang disruption that produced this effect - but make no mistake, the participant is willing.

this second batch is a bunch of nlp on people who are conflicted about believing in something, and the moment they detect something beyond the physical they wind up being convinced its evidence of god. the moment he said he was faking it, or however he described it to them...god disappeared, but they still all felt something though, didnt they. I liked the one girl that said there was something there, but she didnt give into the nlp and let it push her back like the others.

oh prechaaa shutt uuuup, maybe it was god just speaking to her. smh

lol @ dream machine, that was vague as fuck and the lady believed that!

oh jeez, conflating hypnagogic state and aliens...these people are "credible?" old ladies dont sleep a lot and you can tell when one has smoked too many cigs or that certain gravelly tone indicative of something not 100% in the voice arena.

point taken that people who are inclined to believe something, believe it, at times with the flimsiest of evidence. touche, but apples and oranges as compared to false flag attacks on the population. I've got to see the failure of the official story before I disbelieve it, and at this point enough of them have happened that its automatically something to check for, and if perchance there's a training for that exact event, that is automatically suspect because of prior precedent.

**uranus** · 02-13-2016

I am certainly no expert in the discipline of logic but, even with my limited knowledge, these basic flaws in the "truther" positions stick out like a teenage boy's poker at a girl's school swimming pool on a hot summer day.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems your main beefs are:
1. Everyone (except you and the other truthers) rely entirely on the "official�" story provided by the "main stream media" in order to form an opinion.
2. False flag

I'll address your strongest point number 1:
This assumption is unsubstantiated (i.e. lacks substance) but does commit at least two logical fallacies.

Informal logic describes a fallacy called the "straw man" argument. Misrepresenting your opposition's position injects inaccuracy and dishonesty from the giddyup. The "straw man" fallacy is a form of "red herring" fallacy.
You and most other truthers hold up this "official� story" straw man in such a way that also assumes a black or white scenario or "false dilemma".
I also recognize a "genetic fallacy" in this position.

I guess that's three, so I'll just leave that for now.

I recognize the appeal of fabricating a false premise since it might appear to ease one's burden of proof but this approach only further hinders the quest for truth that should be the goal for all humans.

As for point number 2:
The claim is that 9/11 was a false flag. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the claimant to support that claim. So far, I have seen no evidence provided which leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was a false flag. Mere belief is not proof.

I can assure you that I would love to see Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. burn. However, I'm more committed to honesty and the logical pursuit of truth than my attachment to acting on my primal emotions. I made a vow long ago that I will always resist herd mentality regardless of the driving source.

Originally Posted by sumbich

"a disbelieving mindset will basically prevent the energy from coalescing properly"
"physiospiritual friction coefficients"

whatintheactualfuq?
Does this mean I should be able to float down from the top of the World Trade Center if I "disbelieve" in the "theory" of gravity?

I think I'm done with this conversation.
Back to the topic...

**sumbich** · 02-14-2016

Originally Posted by uranus

whatintheactualfuq?
Does this mean I should be able to float down from the top of the World Trade Center if I "disbelieve" in the "theory" of gravity?

with that stuff, sometimes I need to double remember my audience here

sometimes its difficult to discuss a subject with folks that dont have the background. no, that wasnt what I was saying at all. I was saying certain energetic things can be affected by belief, and certain things cannot. things like gravity cannot be affected by belief. but for something like "the masters energetically tossing around the students" then yes, belief and mindset absolutely plays a role - you dont ever see an unwilling participant tossed around. playing is a much different intent than killing, hopefully these contexts mashed together give a general idea of what I'm trying to convey. we still dont really know what chi is or what its composition is - its not entirely electromagnetic, that much is for sure, but there is a small electromagnetic component to it.

wrt #1 - you are making the assumption that the media will always present things accurately to the best of their knowledge. you're also making the assumption that the media would not lie if the words came from the executives to frame a story in a certain manner (as was just revealed about one of clinton's speeches and the coordinated media cover with specific buzzwords from the clinton camp inserted.) it is well know that roughly half a dozen entities own the vast majority of the media outlets. cmon, you know how bad of a traitor hillary clinton is, yet the media consistently fawns over her, why is this? couldnt have anything to do with the work she & bill did for the see-eye-aye running guns and drugs out the gov's mansion, eh....and about the media infiltration efforts....yeah, we dont hear of those any longer. point being, the same folks that own the government, own the media. not 100%, of course.

when the biggest commodity price manipulation ever gets discovered and nobody gets in trouble for it...
when "laws" get passed that are so blatantly unconstitutional and barely 5-10% of moving mouths on the telly are talking about what it really is...
when one Bill's rapes are a problem and another Bill's rapes are completely ignored...
when its discovered that planned parenthood is running a baby parts store...
when its discovered that the NSA is harvesting everyone's calls...
when its discovered that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint have NSA data splitters that fork off traffic for their vacuum..
when the israelis bulldoze yet another palestinian neighborhood...or let's not talk about the nukes they dont have and the nuke treaty they refuse to sign...
when we go secretly coup a government and install americans in leadership positions with newly minted citizenship, then "diversify" (i.e. loot) 20 tons of gold from their central bank....and people are talking about *guffaw* "russian aggression"...
I still dont understand how or why NATO thinks they have any business whatsoever in Syria...
(do I need to find another 9,999,999 examples of things like this?)

and #1 is merely cover for #2. your assessment appears to leave out the possibility that the official story is a strawman, and you are assuming it is not. is this point somehow escaping you? that's part of my issue here - you're harping on me about my efforts to determine what's in the holes in the official story... and are basically questioning why I call those holes, holes, because the official story already has those holes filled (just not with honest storyline)....where you're....assuming its honest storyline?

Help me here, uranus...you're trying to tell me that on one hand you take a logical and skeptical approach to examining phenomena....and on the other you're calling most every hole/discrepancy illogical. Well...which is it? Are you skeptical, and asking questions, are you observant about where holes appear and what their potential implications are? Seems to me that your standard for proof of the existence of the holes is ten times higher than your standard of proof for what comes from an official mouthpiece. I thought at some point way back in this conversation you were merely playing devil's advocate so as to keep a rigorous standard, but then I just keep seeing you repeatedly accept illogical aspects of a story and hand wave away discrepancies, so it really makes me question how skeptical and in search of the truth you really are. Is it an ideal for you that you just cant quite reach? That's why I've used the word alief so often in this thread...the bark just aint matchin the bite, bro.

If you think I'm misrepresenting official stories, please be specific. Pointing out discrepancies is somehow misrepresenting the surrounding story?

Yeah, that seems to be generally how its treated. Call it a strawman! hehehe...so can you blame me for concluding that you simply accept the presented story and are largely done with it on the vast majority of stories?

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised to see you responded about 911

So there's 2 camps of "its not a false flag"...just curious which camp you're in...

1) jet fuel melts steel beams
or
2) we're not THAT silly, we just dont believe it logically follows all the way to the top that they were all or most involved. the buildings were obviously demolitioned but there isnt sufficient evidence to link cheney, rumsfeld et al to it.

#1 or #2?

Since the burden of proof is on the claimant to make the claim, I can firstly refer you to the 911 commission and the NIST report, for completely failing to support their claim.

I can then refer you to ae911truth.org for the assessment of why the commission and NIST reports cannot possibly be true.

Here's the mythbusters episode from an alternate reality where they actually did their job:

Watch it, and compare your standards of logic with what you believe and what you see.

I hope you can see clearly that the NIST report is fraudulent from this simple presentation.

That still doesnt 100% establish false flagginess as irrefutable fact, though.

It takes further digging to realize things like the entity that rented out 80% of building 7 had both Cheney and Rumsfeld on their board of directors,
There's but a handful of people that can schedule a training for NORAD,
Correlate to members of pnac and their white paper about achieving their goals being unlikely absent a new pearl harbor.
How's about that 2.3 trillion rumsfeld mentioned on 9/10...oh wait, that's not a part of this....is it? That one would be making an assumption either way. Think about that in light of the Enron, Worldcomm investigations the SEC was doing...oh, wait, all that evidence was housed in building 7. And the naval investigative unit, that was investigating the SEC? Oh shit, that just happened to get blown up in the pentagon...
Add in the fact that there was a lot of gold heisted in the operation, with top banks (hmmm where have I seen them involved before...) getting theirs out and some smaller ones, even smaller countries, getting told oh, sorry your gold melted into that hole in the ground there...(curious, the rampup of the price of gold in the following years...)

Curious, at what point does correlation become so overwhelming that it breaches the realm of causation? Perpetrators of crimes most often go through great lengths to cover their tracks.

I dont think there's any single event I have studied more than 911. I know on its face Judy Wood's "energy disruption" theory sounds to be about the craziest - but, if you watched her presentation (not a dig, its long, but I dont see any indication you watched any of it, otherwise its reasonable to assume you would have had a point to discuss from it) one of her forensic points was that since we have all this video, seismic, magnetic, and weather data to parse, the theory we come up with will need to describe all of the phenomena witnessed on that day. The seismic, magnetic, and weather phenomena themselves are extremely curious. Hurricane Erin took a 90 degree turn hundreds upon hundreds of miles away in the Atlantic, totally leading any sort of weather front to push it. The magnetic records went apeshit and totally flew off of their readings. The seismic data was so small it wasnt even funny and the commission report's statements about the buildings being pile driven down are completely contradicted by the seismic data. The place was built on bedrock and the seismic signature describes something other than two utterly massive buildings pile driven into the ground. The height of the debris was a tenth or less of what it should have been. The pryoclastic nature of the dust columns without massive amounts of heat. Quasi hutchinson effect and molecular disassociation is just about the only thing that explains it. Like Boyd Bushman said, the data doesnt have to make sense, it just has to be truthful. I pasted those frames up of those pieces of steel going pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff away into dust. Judy Wood claims the "thermite" chips found in the dust were byproduct of this molecular disassociation, but I am not qualified to say yes or no to that - personally I believe it was a mix of methods.

Again, at what point does a hell of a lot of correlation add up to causation?

Can you refute my assertion that your bar for acceptance is far lower for an official story as opposed to that which debunks it?

------
aw shit, the presidential election just became an election for TWO branches of government. no f'n way a R controlled senate confirms another obama appointee. if that happens, the government is more bought off than even I thought.

**uranus** · 02-14-2016

There's no point discussing logic if you won't bother to learn even the most basic points.
Now I feel foolish for ever thinking that you would.
Class dismissed.

**sumbich** · 02-15-2016

*chuckles* I guess its difficult for you to say "#1" then, isnt it? is that why class is dismissed every time we go to discuss this, you fail, announce that *I* have failed, and then announce class is over? LOL...

did you watch mythbusters and compare what you believe about 911 to your "logic" and realize the failure?

is it that tough to admit the bar you set for me is met with complete and utter failure by the commission report and NIST?

but no scrutiny for them, they're "official," after all...

so I can basically expect you to announce that class is dismissed every time you're backed into a corner?

class dismissed, indeed.

perhaps you need some other learnings instead of "logic"

---------------------------------
cripes, seriously? Scalia's family declines an autopsy?? nope, nothin fishy there...mysterious untimely death, nah, no reason to investigate anything...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#photo-9402823

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,” said Poindexter.

Of course that means, no reason to examine the capillaries in his eyes for signs of suffocation...

(now here's your chance to get away from that 911 topic, uranus....run forrest! run! seriously....was it the way I worded it, dont like a little sarcasm because it'll make you sound like an idiot for revealing what you actually believe? dont worry I wont write HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA if you ever actually admit believing the commission report. but you may hear echoes of it down there in the city. it must be awesome to be so confident of your position that you simply refuse to state it.)

User Tag List

Thread: Butthurt Street

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Spiderman butthurt by the name Spiderpig, boosted me whole game

yeahhh street fighter

Members who have read this thread : 162

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions