| |
|
Conspiracies: Who am I to discredit someone else?
Re Conspiracies: What's credible and what's not?
I don't happen to agree with every comment made by either James or Dan. I don't disagree
with everything you have said. What I do notice is when people freak out over the mention
of the word conspiracy, that what comes out of their mouths are words lacking balance.
When a person's response is to label anyone that thinks there is a conspiracy about
something as a "crackpot" and claims there is no bearing or foundation because they
couldn't possibly have any real answers, they have in my opinion reduced themselves to no
more than the person that screams, "They are the oppressors, human predators making us
their sheeple" and that there is a plan for every detail in a secret society or shadow
government. You are being as radical as that person to strike out in such a way.
You speak of myths and legends and with all due respect, sounds like a great line but it
just doesn't work. We are not dealing with fairy tales. I don't believe in religion (I am
not speaking of spirituality) and consider it man-made. I would absolutely not be
disrespectful of a person that chooses to follow a certain faith. We are all individuals
-- there a many worlds within this big world. It would be egotistical to think I have the
one take on anything. I can disagree and explain where I stand but the minute I start
degrading someone and
|
|
I am not interested in
talking about a conspiracy about Reagan.
I don't know everything surrounding it and
merely made a statement about my own observations.
For you to ask me to give you more
details about what the "exact" words he spoke and I not really sure what else you feel you
need?
The exact date and which station I saw it on?
It is rather pointless and not worth
creating an entire discussion about it.
|
|
|
|
saying they are a religious zealot, I have become the zealot against
religion. Both positions are one in the same and lack all capacity to see past a limited
belief system constructed for emotional safety. There is little difference between the
two.
We must really be misinterpreting one another here because I don't think you have
represented my statements any clearer than you feel I have yours. I am not interested in
talking about a conspiracy about Reagan. I don't know everything surrounding it and
merely made a statement about my own observations. For you to ask me to give you more
details about what the "exact" words he spoke and I not really sure what else you feel you
need? The exact date and which station I saw it on? It is rather pointless and not worth
creating an entire discussion about it. If you go back to my original statement you will
see that the paragraph that it is taken from is referring to the Federal Reserve and the
importance of the power it holds regarding our government. My main concern was the
Federal Reserve. Most corporations are corrupt and have their own agenda as you said but
I get to pick if I am involved with it. The Federal Reserve is in a position to hold
power over the
government that is supposed to represent me.
So, you have made yourself clear that suspicion is invaluable to you. I will say however
that anything that is investigated begins with suspicion. I agree it won't hold up in a
court of law. OJ was found not guilty in a court of law. Have you ever been a juror? I
have twice and it is a pretty sorry system - people are found not guilty on technicality
and people have the mere words of another leave them guilty when they are not. Innocent
people have been put to death or let go after 20 years in prison. People have gotten away
with murder. I have been a juror and followed the requirements and we had to let someone
off when the entire jury thought were guilty. The prosecutor did a lousy job and we had
to live with it. It is of course the only system we have and must do the best we can with
it but I don't have a lot of respect for it.
The problem with labeling everyone that has a belief in a conspiracy as a crackpot is that
you silence people that may actually have real information because they are scared of
being labeled as one. If we are only willing to be open to hearing things that are
actually proven then we lose the opportunity to possibly prevent things from happening in
the future.
If you asked me if I believe in UFO's, I would tell you I don't know a thing about it or
have any strong opinion about it. If you asked me if I thought anyone that believed it
them was a crackpot, I would tell you no I don't. Who am I to discredit someone else? I
can say that my mild opinion on it is that there is probably something to it because there
are too many people that have had actual experiences for it to be they are all crazy. UFO
simply means unidentified flying object. Does that mean it is a secret military thing or
life form from another planet? I don't have a clue.
As you said yourself many of your
own beliefs could be labeled as crack potty. With things like MK ULTRA we now know that
there were people that didn't speak up about it because they didn't want to be called a
wacko or crackpot. Each person involved in it is a piece of the puzzle and no one piece
of possible evidence could not have stood on its own. I'm sure the people that suffered
through that wish that someone would have heard them in the midst of it. As it was it
took a woman spending hours upon hours going through de-classified info to back up her
experience. Isn't it sad that probably not a single person in the mainstream public would
have believed her otherwise? They probably would have thought she needed to be put in a
nuthouse and given a few more drugs.
To answer your question about it being odd that so many ordinary people would know about a
secret government; This is only my opinion and so of course, holds no weight with you as
you have already indicated. These days you can find information on the internet and it is
not as of yet controlled by our government. I don't think that it is all factual or worth
visiting. We have come to a place with technology that it has become far more difficult
to keep things hidden. 911 is a pretty classic example of that. I never heard anything
to discredit the 911 Commission on any mainstream media. There are plenty of people that
think any doubt on the part of our government regarding it is based in "conspiracy nutcase
garbage". I at first that it was ridiculous that our own government would do such a thing
but I don't anymore. Claims of knowledge about a secret government has been around
forever just not as widely known. This is the information age. Do I think anyone knows
all of the hard truths about it? No, most likely not and certainly not in your terms of
absolute proof.
Debby
| |
You write, "I would absolutely not be
disrespectful of a person that chooses to follow a certain faith." I try pretty hard (well, at least it's hard for me) not to be disrespectful or even rude. Religion helps a lot of people, hurts a lot of people too, but until somebody gets hurt against their will it ought to be every person's choice. Whatever tickles anyone's consensual fancy is fine with me, and I trust we agree on that, or chances are you'd have never found our website. Freedom of religion is just another aspect of every person's inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and for freedom I've got tolerance coming out the yin-yang.
So I'm not rude about religion, unless a religious person is trying to use his/her faith to re-shape a nation's government or laws, or unless a religious person is proselytizing me, trying to talk me into joining a particular religion. But when someone rings my doorbell and tries to make me accept their faith, well, if I'm going to give them the courtesy of listening to what they say, I'll expect an opportunity to tell them what I think, too. And it might sound disrespectful to them, but I've told the Jehovah's Witlesses and door-to-door Mormons, I'm not going to take it on faith 'cuz I just don't have much of that kind of faith. I'll argue back and demand the evidence. I'm a "show me" person -- we lived in Missouri until 2004.
And generally speaking, religion doesn't hold up well to asking for evidence or the scrutiny of logic -- except on the logical level that, since religion makes a lot of people feel better about themselves, their lives, and this world, it's logically a good thing for those people.
Our differences, I think, come down to one question you ask yourself: Who am I to discredit someone else? To that I'd answer, you're you and that's important. If you don't find a way to distinguish what's credible from what's not, then you're a sponge, believing whatever you're told. But that's the rhetorical 'you' -- I'm not saying that's you.
You, Debby, you undoubtedly have a filter, you use it to reject numerous preposterous notions, effectively discrediting other notions and people all the time, every day of your life. Some things you see with your own eyes, other things you take on faith, other things you demand evidence, and then you look at the evidence and separate what makes sense from what doesn't. Clearly you have such a filtering mechanism of the mind, and just as clearly you don't want to talk about it.
My own filter says: If you don't have the evidence to substantiate it, then a theorized conspiracy is just another form of faith. And Debby, kind stranger, if you ring our doorbell or bring your theories to our website, we're going to ask for evidence.
Now here's where I gotta get cranky.
I asked for a bit of evidence for your theory that the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan was a conspiracy involving the Bush family, and you tell me you're not interested in talking about it. No, Debby, I'm the one who's not interested in the Reagan shooting, and you're the one who brought it up. Twice. I hadn't given the slightest thought to Reagan's shooting in years, let alone any alleged conspiracy behind it, until you brought it up, twice, but because you brought it up, twice, I gave it some thought and banged out a few paragraphs and asked what seemed logical questions about what you've said. And your response is to tell me you're not interested in talking about a conspiracy to shoot Reagan.
My response to this, spoken out loud here in our apartment, was Fuck, I'm just wasting time. I'm a slow writer and this is our third email exchange with you about conspiracies, so I've probably spent four or five hours with you over the past few days, and now I can see it was time trashed. Time I could have spent working and earning minimum wage, or time I could have spent trying to rouse the rabble against the litany of senseless wars ongoing and more ongoing wars to come.
Debby. You told me that you had personally heard Reagan speak about the shadow government. You told me that you heard the words come out of his mouth. You told me that you had never heard of anything like that until then. So obviously these words spoken by Reagan made a big impression of you. You told me that you remembered these words when Reagan was shot, that these words formed the foundation for your belief that Reagan's subsequent shooting was in retaliation for his speaking these words. So I asked you, what were these words -- and you don't remember? -- and you can't even give me the gist? -- and you don't want to talk about it? Criminy, Debby, you brought it up. Twice.
Fuck, I'm just wasting time. There are certain things I look for in a conversation, and you're not offering those things. At least on this topic, asking you questions leads to sidestepping and aversion, and answering your questions leads nowhere.
Oy and double oy, but no hard feelings, and I mean that. You're always welcome here if you want to talk about something else, but let's cease chatting about conspiracies.
Helen & Harry
| |
|
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
Unknown News is more fun and more informative with your participation, so please don't be shy. Consider yourself invited to speak your mind.
|
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
|
| |
We sell our own progressive bumper stickers:
pro-peace, anti-Bush,
pro-freedom,
anti-Republican
stickers you won't find anywhere else.
bumper stickers
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
