Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I bought it. It just sounds like some NdGT would say, so I didn't question it.
The problem there is that the hardness of the evidence doesn't seem to survive a direct touch. I have not seen one bit of hard evidence for any conspiracy theory ... they are spun from the ground up of the suggestive. And there is something very wrong with trying to promote that to fact. cnThere's some things we may not be able to prove, but our collective instinct may tell us something is not right.
For example, the 1947 Roswell incident. The government changes their story of what happened after an apparent UFO crash landed near a military base.
It's going to be hard to collect solid evidence, if the government tried to cover everything up, but there is a mass confusion about what happened, and eye witness reports. So if you want to find out the truth, it's up to you to figure it out with your instinct and that could lead you to hard evidence if you dig deep enough. That's what Conspiracy Theorists do really, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Well, William Cooper was an Ex Naval Intelligence Offficer and conspiracy theorist. He kept up to date on Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. June 2001, he had a "theory" that a terrorist attack would occur on American soil and that they would blame it on Osama Bin Laden. It happened.The problem there is that the hardness of the evidence doesn't seem to survive a direct touch. I have not seen one bit of hard evidence for any conspiracy theory ... they are spun from the ground up of the suggestive. And there is something very wrong with trying to promote that to fact. cn
The problem there is that the hardness of the evidence doesn't seem to survive a direct touch. I have not seen one bit of hard evidence for any conspiracy theory ... they are spun from the ground up of the suggestive. And there is something very wrong with trying to promote that to fact. cn
Please elaborate.you just gave a very accurate description of our current judicial system.
We take a piece of subjective evidence and spin an entire scenario around it and try to feed it a jury in a way that makes it appear to be facts.Please elaborate.
The premise of our judicial system, at this point, is the opposite. You take hard evidence, and display it to the jury. Then significance of the facts are explained. Speculation is not allowed. You can't just "spin" something, as you put it. You can tell a story; if the evidence doesn't back it up, then the judge is supposed to throw out the case. Sadly, people do get wrongly convicted at times. The majority of people are not jailed for some random bit of circumstantial (subjective) evidence though. The legal system isn't perfect. You want individual rights while you're tried? That's the unpleasant downside.We take a piece of subjective evidence and spin an entire scenario around it and try to feed it a jury in a way that makes it appear to be facts.
And that is why you should always actually comply with the summons to jury duty... I have on the occasions that I have been called up for it and I have seen through to deliver justice for some people that the Jury just wanted to convict and go home... Skipping out on Jury Duty in general is a dog shit thing to do... In my opinion...It's a joke in skeptic circles that one sure fire way to get out of jury duty is to tell them you are passionate about skepticism and critical thinking. They want people who can be manipulated.
That's a good follow up point. The fact that they want sheeple is all the more reason for critical thinkers to get involved. The joke arose however from the coincidence that a number of skeptics had the similar experience of being dismissed after mentioning a 'skeptical' credential, not necessarily because anyone actually wanted to get out of jury duty.And that is why you should always actually comply with the summons to jury duty... I have on the occasions that I have been called up for it and I have seen through to deliver justice for some people that the Jury just wanted to convict and go home... Skipping out on Jury Duty in general is a dog shit thing to do... In my opinion...
I don't understand this. Why is being a "skeptic" a bad thing? Wanting to determine the veracity of something is, generally, a respectable action.That's a good follow up point. The fact that they want sheeple is all the more reason for critical thinkers to get involved. The joke arose however from the coincidence that a number of skeptics had the similar experience of being dismissed after mentioning a 'skeptical' credential, not necessarily because anyone actually wanted to get out of jury duty.
Attorneys much prefer the manipulable unthinkers. cnI don't understand this. Why is being a "skeptic" a bad thing? Wanting to determine the veracity of something is, generally, a respectable action.
A lot of the time it seems justice is revenge...Doesn't surprise me.. Justice isn't about actual justice, it's about revenge