Possible world wide revolution?

I admit, I have a strong bias towards evidence. A showing that something is plausible is completely uninteresting to me unless I had asserted that it isn't. But if no attempt is made to show that something is possible, probable, or actually the case, beyond the empty insistence that it must be, then there is nothing here to discuss.

Uzima Moto wrote: I guess what I'm thinking of is kinda both a revolution and an evolution..

A revolution without cause only creates a greater mess. Evolution is not a directed process and has no destination. You have used both these terms in a context that is inappropriate in the face of the overwhelming evidence I have provided here.

Hey I have and idea instead of ignoring that evidence and taking yet another quote even further out of context and stomping your foot and demanding that your unfounded assertions are true, why not try actually addressing the evidence and try and debunk it. That fact you have not is proof enough for me that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I derailed this thread indeed, what I actually did was stop a bunch of fear mongers from spread some of the most inane lies ever concocted. And yes I used the term lie deliberately. When one is faced with actual truth in evidence and still refuses to accept the facts and continues to spout disinformation to play on people's fears it can be categorized as nothing less than a deliberate lie.

Gisteron wrote: I admit, I have a strong bias towards evidence. A showing that something is plausible is completely uninteresting to me unless I had asserted that it isn't. But if no attempt is made to show that something is possible, probable, or actually the case, beyond the empty insistence that it must be, then there is nothing here to discuss.

Evidence can be provided.. if you are open to the plausibility.. because as far as a smoking gun, you won't find many.. except for 9/11, maybe.. Kyrin provided evidences, unwittingly lol..

Her exposé on Jefferson really highlighted the point she was trying to debunk. Mainly, that banking institutions were more dangerous to liberty than a standing army.. but conspiracies fill our historical records. The plot to kill Caesar was a conspiracy. So to dismiss conspiracies as "false by definition"(which depends on which definition you read) without a second thought is intellectually lazy in my book..

History would tell me it's more likely than not and in need of investigation. Not find every excuse and rationalization to dismiss what I fear..

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: A revolution without cause only creates a greater mess. Evolution is not a directed process and has no destination. You have used both these terms in a context that is inappropriate in the face of the overwhelming evidence I have provided here.

Evolution has and always will be the refinement and adaptation of flaws to better fit what is needed in the current environment. It does have an end goal, perfection, which is relative to what is needed. And the current system is fatally flawed and in need of such evolution.

Uzima Moto wrote: The plot to kill Caesar was a conspiracy. So to dismiss conspiracies as "false by definition"(which depends on which definition you read) without a second thought is intellectually lazy in my book..

Agreed. People conspire for good and for ill, pretty much all the time. If that's what you want to reduce your claims to, then there is no more disagreement between us.

Arisaig wrote: Evolution has and always will be the refinement and adaptation of flaws to better fit what is needed in the current environment. It does have an end goal, perfection, which is relative to what is needed. And the current system is fatally flawed and in need of such evolution.

That is absolutely false. Evolution has no end goal especially towards perfection. That is unachievable in the first place because no single definition of perfection of any system could ever be achieved, let alone the state itself.

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I admit, I have a strong bias towards evidence. A showing that something is plausible is completely uninteresting to me unless I had asserted that it isn't. But if no attempt is made to show that something is possible, probable, or actually the case, beyond the empty insistence that it must be, then there is nothing here to discuss.

Evidence can be provided.. if you are open to the plausibility.. because as far as a smoking gun, you won't find many.. except for 9/11, maybe.. Kyrin provided evidences, unwittingly lol..

Her exposé on Jefferson really highlighted the point she was trying to debunk. Mainly, that banking institutions were more dangerous to liberty than a standing army.. but conspiracies fill our historical records. The plot to kill Caesar was a conspiracy. So to dismiss conspiracies as "false by definition"(which depends on which definition you read) without a second thought is intellectually lazy in my book..

History would tell me it's more likely than not and in need of investigation. Not find every excuse and rationalization to dismiss what I fear..

Lmao really? Once again putting words in my mouth? I'm not sure how proving Jefferson. ever said what you Claimed he said is proof of a conspiracy theory but good luck trying to claim that. I also never said conspiracies were false... I said conspiracy THEORIES such as the ones your pedaling are false.

Beyond that claiming something has happened before so it must be happening now is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. Your assertions lack any foundation.

Conspiracy (and celebrity) still speak to something, even if they are massive wastes of time. It's easy to lay its existence in society as 'fear' and a wanting something to rage against (to distract themselves from own misery) - but another angle is it can serve as a vehicle for interest in an area to grow, by using tasty concepts to tether ones focus onto a topic in a greater depth then which might not otherwise be accessible through the dry and sharp landscape of pure fact. I know the philosophers ship cuts a clean line through the ocean but its destination is a bit preordained, in comparison... the slow party boat can be more fun sometimes In the grand scheme of things the former can move more people over time, but for the individual who is creating their own universe, one might be more effective then the other. I guess if those ships are clashing, then it means its time for some people to jump ship, or are stuck with one leg on each!! #morningmusings

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: The plot to kill Caesar was a conspiracy. So to dismiss conspiracies as "false by definition"(which depends on which definition you read) without a second thought is intellectually lazy in my book..

Agreed. People conspire for good and for ill, pretty much all the time. If that's what you want to reduce your claims to, then there is no more disagreement between us.

It was kind of my point the whole time lol..

My comment to this post has to deal with people who mean ill having the avenues to do so on a greater scale.. i believe, as many before us have, that systems of coercive authority attract those type the most because they offer the greatest benefit, power..

If there was a need of an evolutionary revolution. It would be for the masses to willfully decentralize power among themselves. Understanding that they have a natural liberty as unique individuals. We're not just gears in the machinery.. When power, wealth, resources, etc are concentrated into the hands of the few. We collectively suffer for it. We're bent to their will by our dependency to their power. By this whole nations are disarmed, indebted, and subjugated..

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: The plot to kill Caesar was a conspiracy. So to dismiss conspiracies as "false by definition"(which depends on which definition you read) without a second thought is intellectually lazy in my book..

Agreed. People conspire for good and for ill, pretty much all the time. If that's what you want to reduce your claims to, then there is no more disagreement between us.

It was kind of my point the whole time lol..

Oh, okay, so when you claimed that 9/11 was an inside job you only meant to say that people sometimes conspire, and nothing else? And when you claimed that vapor trails behind planes are chemical manipulations of the atmosphere, you only meant to say that people sometimes conspire, and nothing else? I see, I see. And here I thought you actually meant what you said. Silly me! Let's see, what else was I carelessly misreading all this time...