Politics The Hangar Tinfoil/Spirituality/Off key ramblings thread

Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
This is by no means an attempt to get into deabte about pro vaccine vs anti vaccine - that always ends in two brick wall headed sides getting nowhere....its tiring.

This is more about stifiling freedom of speech and big Pharma looking after their best interests with heavy behind the scenes lobbying... i mean they fight like hell for freedom of speech to allow us to view the sick human centipede film.. then not stuff like this?? isnt a debate allowing both sides of an issue?

Robert De Niro Forced To Pull Anti-vaccine Film From Festival

Robert De Niro has been forced to pull a controversial anti-vaccine film from the Tribeca Film Festival – following condemnation from Big Pharma groups.

The long-anticipated documentary film VAXXED – From Cover-Up to Catastrophe was scheduled to be shown at the tribeca film festival following its censorship elsewhere due to its claim that vaccines cause autism.

De Niro had originally defended his decision to screen the documentary, saying that as his own son has autism he felt it was vitally important that the issues surrounding vaccines and autism were openly discussed and examined.

As more pressure was brought against De Niro for defending the free speech of what might be one of the single most important documentaries of our modern age, he caved. He pulled the film from Tribeca, participating in the censorship that was demanded by the vaccine totalitarians. The film’s page on Tribeca was also memory holed and De Niro felt compelled to issue a follow-up statement today that appeases the demands of the vaccine fundamentalists:

My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family. But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.

The Festival doesn’t seek to avoid or shy away from controversy. However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program. We have decided to remove it from our schedule.

In other words, the vaccine intimidation campaign got to De Niro and no doubt threatened him in the same way they threaten everybody else who dares go public with the stories about vaccines.

Sadly, even Robert De Niro decided he could not expend the political capital necessary to fight the intense onslaught of the vaccine totalitarians who continue to murder and maim countless children (alleged) across our planet every single year. We obviously hope De Niro will realize how he is being used as a tool of censorship and oppression and come to the realization that he needs to resist the censorship and show the film for the world to see. I believe that Robert De Niro is a compassionate person, and he supports discussions about vaccine safety, yet he is also discovering just how intensely threatening and cruel the vaccine mafia can be when they want to silence someone.

Censorship of the VAXXED film is proof that it was compelling, persuasive and DANGEROUS to the vaccine establishment

If you listen to the vaccine totalitarians and corporate science zealots, every person featured in VAXXED is a total quack, fraud or nut job who spouts loony gibberish that makes no sense. If that’s true, then why is this film too dangerous for anyone to watch? If the people interviewed in the film are obviously frauds and nut jobs, then why not let the entire world see the film and be even more convinced that they’re full of bunk?

The real answer, of course, is because VAXXED is credible, authoritative and extremely well documented. And that is precisely why the vaccine establishment considers it to be so dangerous. VAXXED is informative and even persuasive. It documents the vaccine evidence fraud and cover-up that was committed by the CDC and admitted to by Dr. William Thompson.

VAXXED pulls back the curtain on the decades of scientific fraud and cover-ups, revealing a truth about vaccine dangers that’s so shocking, it would forever alter the debate on vaccine safety from here forward. And that’s precisely why the public can never be allowed to see this film: The truth is dangerous to an industry built on LIES, and as this truth is coming out everywhere, the industry has resorted to its most desperate measure of all — book burning — in an effort to prevent their decades of medical fraud and ethics violations from becoming widely known.

Much like the GMO industry, the vaccine industry only exists because of intense, well funded and ongoing censorship, oppression, intimidation and defamation campaigns. Any celebrity who dares ask commonsense questions about vaccines — Jim Carrey, Rob Schneider, etc. — gets immediately “vaccine shamed” and often blackballed from many potential roles in future films.

So why not allow a film if its full of quacks?
 
Oh, it's a pass from me then!

Anyhow I'd like to hear from somebody knowledgeable in philosophy whether one of the most basic of human rights is the right to be wrong?
The most basic tenet of philosophy is that you can argue any bullshit you want as long as its logically sound.
 
Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
As I was trying to preface before I don't really care for the issue , I'm neither here nor there. Just posted because a part of this story piqued at my interest. Fwiw my kids are vaccinated, I'm vaccinated- if somebody chooses not to that's for them to wrestle with. I do believe I chose to do it after investigating for myself rather than being forced by pseudo complusory rules or blindly accepting everything as fact, but I do that with everything in life.

I don't however get flu shots or the latest epidemic booster...I'll back my self in on that.

What I'm more Interested in are the powers that allow some things to see the light of day in Hollywood and some not?

Who makes these calls? Why?

De Nero seems a heavyweight of the industry too, I mean your normal pleb may not have the power or money or fortitude to stick by their guns on any particular issue but if anyone had the zeal you'd guess it would be he. Hes not just going to change his mind after years of work is he? Must have been had pretty heavy pressure applied.

I.know it's fiction but I can't believe they lobbied for years to allow that depraved human centipede film light of day then try to censure something that some people actually believe in, if my kid had autisim I'd look for any thing to blindly blame also, I see that but I also see if the counter argument is strong enough the subject matter should be able to stand up to debate on both sides.

Dick Cheney got his climate change film up, old mate got his fast food/maccas movie up, stuff like food inc, anti gun flicks by Michael Moore... All these fight powerful lobby groups, the nra, the fossil fuel industry ect and get through unscathed.

What makes this one different is why I'm curious and by having it pulled at the last second ,doseht it raise more suspicious eyebrows than not?
 
As I was trying to preface before I don't really care for the issue , I'm neither here nor there. Just posted because a part of this story piqued at my interest. Fwiw my kids are vaccinated, I'm vaccinated- if somebody chooses not to that's for them to wrestle with. I do believe I chose to do it after investigating for myself rather than being forced by pseudo complusory rules or blindly accepting everything as fact, but I do that with everything in life.

I don't however get flu shots or the latest epidemic booster...I'll back my self in on that.

What I'm more Interested in are the powers that allow some things to see the light of day in Hollywood and some not?

Who makes these calls? Why?

De Nero seems a heavyweight of the industry too, I mean your normal pleb may not have the power or money or fortitude to stick by their guns on any particular issue but if anyone had the zeal you'd guess it would be he. Hes not just going to change his mind after years of work is he? Must have been had pretty heavy pressure applied.

I.know it's fiction but I can't believe they lobbied for years to allow that depraved human centipede film light of day then try to censure something that some people actually believe in, if my kid had autisim I'd look for any thing to blindly blame also, I see that but I also see if the counter argument is strong enough the subject matter should be able to stand up to debate on both sides.

Dick Cheney got his climate change film up, old mate got his fast food/Mackers movie up, stuff like food inc, anti gun flicks by Michael Moore... All these fight powerful lobby groups, the nra, the fossil fuel industry ect and get through unscathed.

What makes this one different is why I'm curious and by having it pulled at the last second ,doseht it raise more suspicious eyebrows than not?
It's an interesting question.

I was going to try and explain ASD in my own words, but I don't want to miss bits out or say something that's wrong, so instead I'll quote another website...
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a group of conditions that cause people to have difficulties with social communication, to have narrow interests and repetitive behaviours, or to be over-sensitive or under-sensitive to taste, touch, sight or sounds.

About autism spectrum disorder
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a brain-based condition – that is, where the brain hasn’t developed in a typical way. Although no two children with ASD are the same, they all face challenges in interacting and communicating with others. And they also have either a narrow range of interests or engage in repetitive activities.

What causes autism spectrum disorder?
We don’t know exactly what causes autism spectrum disorder (ASD). But the latest research shows that in children with ASD:
  • there’s early brain overgrowth, which means the brain grows faster than average
  • different parts of the brain don’t communicate with each other in a typical way.
Evidence also strongly suggests a genetic basis to ASD – that is, the condition might come from the complex interaction of several genes involved in brain development.
http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/autism_spectrum_disorder_overview.html

When I was at uni they explained it simply as though all of the genetic code for one person could be contained in one big book (imagine an encyclopaedia or something)... for some people with ASD it could just be a few letters, a word, or a paragraph missing. Others may be missing a page or two, even a chapter.

The result is that children with ASD need to be explicitly taught social behaviours - which other children may observe and replicate without it being pointed out. If taught these behaviours incorrectly (for example, making eye contact with the person who is speaking) then the person with ASD may not realise that they are making too much eye contact and are in fact making the person uncomfortable (which people interpret as 'staring').


The problem is that social development is less noticeable in very young children unless you know what you're looking for. As a result ASD becomes noticeable and is commonly diagnosed in children between the ages of 3 and 5 - which just happens to be the same time frame when children receive the polio or MMR or whatever other vaccines.


The problem with a movie that depicts vaccines as causing autism is that it spreads misinformation. In this case such misinformation could reduce the number of people getting vaccinated by... maybe only one or two percent. But that one or two percent is the difference between effective herd immunity and ineffective herd immunity... and when herd immunity is ineffective, children who cannot be vaccinated because they have a low immune system due to... perhaps cancer or other conditions/diseases... those children then become more likely to contract deadly viruses which we have currently all but eliminated in vaccinated populations.

I'd go as far as to say the deliberate spread of misinformation causing widespread panic and potential health epidemics could be labeled as 'terrorism'.
 
Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
I guess my perspective is that this is festering about in the undergrowth, where misinformation is rife and people are getting unverified information left, right and centre.

Its propbably outgrown conspiracy theorists now, its been allowed to gain a foothold.

It's like they are being forced into the blackmsrket to peddle illicit information. I figure if you get it out into mainstream and debunk it, haven't you somewhat nipped it in the bud?

The more it gets hidden, the more ppl wonder, like the don't push this button theory.

Maybe De Nero is the key, gives too much of a powerful respected creedecne... Well as powerful as you can be after being in meet the fockers... or bad grandpa
 
I guess my perspective is that this is festering about in the undergrowth, where misinformation is rife and people are getting unverified information left, right and centre.

Its propbably outgrown conspiracy theorists now, its been allowed to gain a foothold.

It's like they are being forced into the blackmsrket to peddle illicit information. I figure if you get it out into mainstream and debunk it, haven't you somewhat nipped it in the bud?

The more it gets hidden, the more ppl wonder, like the don't push this button theory.

Maybe De Nero is the key, gives too much of a powerful respected creedecne... Well as powerful as you can be after being in meet the fockers... or bad grandpa
The sign of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it. I think the ability of the general population to think critically about these issues is overestimated.

The foothold is a result of bloody Oprah and other US celebrities coming out and blaming vaccines for autism. I don't know precisely what this movie is supposed to be aiming for, but if its anything other than a complete scientific debunking of it then I'm not surprised it got canned. Even if it is meant to debunk the myths, there is already so much information out there for anyone willing to look that more will simply confuse the issue.


I'm a fan of quotes, idioms and phrases, so here's another one:

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion." ~ Lord Acton
 
Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
The sign of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it. I think the ability of the general population to think critically about these issues is overestimated.

The foothold is a result of bloody Oprah and other US celebrities coming out and blaming vaccines for autism. I don't know precisely what this movie is supposed to be aiming for, but if its anything other than a complete scientific debunking of it then I'm not surprised it got canned. Even if it is meant to debunk the myths, there is already so much information out there for anyone willing to look that more will simply confuse the issue.


I'm a fan of quotes, idioms and phrases, so here's another one:

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion." ~ Lord Acton

Thats exactly right! The sign of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.. which is why i get so angry at moral highgrounders who have the nerve to say to me no, you have no right to an opinion if its wrong. They peddle in whatever programmed intellect they have chosen to educate themsleves with and have no other side if it wasnt a part of their learning.

I yearn for discussion with people who can have a stand point - but listen the other side then politley debunk it if needed or say i respect your right to the opinion you have but dont agree with it. (this is on any topic by the way, not the current discussion)

Which in the same way i hate it when 'conspiracy theorists' just take the conspiracy side as their default address without being open to a: both sides or b: the ablity to change position when you recieve new facts or information.

Hence why i despise being called a Conspiracy theorist, and prefer being a labelled a critical thinker or free thinker with slight tendacies toward being an agitator. :p


If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing - Anatole France

(feeble quote tennis ;)
 
Thats exactly right! The sign of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.. which is why i get so angry at moral highgrounders who have the nerve to say to me no, you have no right to an opinion if its wrong. They peddle in whatever programmed intellect they have chosen to educate themsleves with and have no other side if it wasnt a part of their learning.

I yearn for discussion with people who can have a stand point - but listen the other side then politley debunk it if needed or say i respect your right to the opinion you have but dont agree with it. (this is on any topic by the way, not the current discussion)

Which in the same way i hate it when 'conspiracy theorists' just take the conspiracy side as their default address without being open to a: both sides or b: the ablity to change position when you recieve new facts or information.

Hence why i despise being called a Conspiracy theorist, and prefer being a labelled a critical thinker or free thinker with slight tendacies toward being an agitator. :p


If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing - Anatole France

(feeble quote tennis ;)
"You are not entitled to your opinion; you are only entitled to what you can argue for."

I would question whether most people's opinions ARE educated. A right to an opinion is not a right to an audience. I don't believe that the privilege of an audience should be granted if what you have to say is not grounded in fact and logical argument. And by "logical argument" I mean a philosophically rational argument.

"A so-called opinion that is not thought out or has no concern for evidence is an assumption, not an opinion."

"Avoid opinions to the best of your ability, have beliefs instead. Ground them as best you can in evidence and avoid contradictions."


I'll just leave this here.. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sorry-you-entitled-your-opinion-bruce-d-


ETA: I would suggest that what we're doing now is a relatively logical argument, neither of us are really standing on an uneducated opinion and defending it to the hilt. I would suggest that there is plenty of people out there though that would not be capable of educating themselves or altering their opinions in the face of new evidence, or at least would be hard pressed to accept new evidence into their reasoning. This is called 'confirmation bias', where evidence is chosen or understood selectively so that it conforms with preconceived ideas.

School does not teach critical thinking until basically VCE (we did a small amount in year 10 English when it was my turn), and I think most people don't go beyond that. The best example of this is in common misconceptions often used to sell food... i.e. organic, anti-GMO, gluten-free, dairy-free, various fad diets, etc. While there are good arguments to be had about any of these ideas, most people do not bother having these arguments and simply latch on to the hype, buy the overpriced food and never really ask the questions.

Critical thinking is good, but you do need hard evidence to back yourself up. I don't know what Di Niro's movie is about, maybe it is solid facts I don't know... But you have to ask whether the people watching that movie will ask the questions and seek the answers. My opinion is that most won't.
 
Last edited:
Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
"You are not entitled to your opinion; you are only entitled to what you can argue for."

I would question whether most people's opinions ARE educated. A right to an opinion is not a right to an audience. I don't believe that the privilege of an audience should be granted if what you have to say is not grounded in fact and logical argument. And by "logical argument" I mean a philosophically rational argument.

"A so-called opinion that is not thought out or has no concern for evidence is an assumption, not an opinion."

"Avoid opinions to the best of your ability, have beliefs instead. Ground them as best you can in evidence and avoid contradictions."


I'll just leave this here.. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sorry-you-entitled-your-opinion-bruce-d-


ETA: I would suggest that what we're doing now is a relatively logical argument, neither of us are really standing on an uneducated opinion and defending it to the hilt. I would suggest that there is plenty of people out there though that would not be capable of educating themselves or altering their opinions in the face of new evidence, or at least would be hard pressed to accept new evidence into their reasoning. This is called 'confirmation bias', where evidence is chosen or understood selectively so that it conforms with preconceived ideas.

School does not teach critical thinking until basically VCE (we did a small amount in year 10 English when it was my turn), and I think most people don't go beyond that. The best example of this is in common misconceptions often used to sell food... i.e. organic, anti-GMO, gluten-free, dairy-free, various fad diets, etc. While there are good arguments to be had about any of these ideas, most people do not bother having these arguments and simply latch on to the hype, buy the overpriced food and never really ask the questions.

Critical thinking is good, but you do need hard evidence to back yourself up. I don't know what Di Niro's movie is about, maybe it is solid facts I don't know... But you have to ask whether the people watching that movie will ask the questions and seek the answers. My opinion is that most won't.

Most times these things get shown at these festivals not to gain a mainstream audience as such but to make a point of some description to the establishment (I've not seen it, have no idea the exact details of their argument).

but we are not really debating the film anymore - more about the tenants of personal liberties i guess?

That's the funny point about perception or morality or opinion or logical argument - each side thinks they have it in any battle. That's why you enter into the argument!

Most people would say oh you are wrong, i have the moral high ground - you need to come back to me with a philosophically rational argument.... Meanwhile that's what side b believes they have had all along, But because side a dosent agree with it , it ceases to be a rational argument.

Which comes back to: an educated mind being able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

To me being a critical thinker means questioning everything - that is all. I never go into anything with a fixed opinion.

If someone tells me the sky is blue ill think OK... to the naked eye yes.. but let me wait and see. Its black at night, whats the go there? 15 hours later im drooling from the mouth having gone off on 17 tangents and ended up on string theory heh
 
Last edited:
Most times these things get shown at these festivals not to gain a mainstream audience as such but to make a point of some description to the establishment (I've not seen it, have no idea the exact details of their argument).

but we are not really debating the film anymore - more about the tenants of personal liberties i guess?

That's the funny point about perception or morality or opinion or logical argument - each side thinks they have it in any battle. That's why you enter into the argument!

Most people would say oh you are wrong, i have the moral high ground - you need to come back to me with a philosophically rational argument.... Meanwhile that's what side b believes they have had all along, But because side a dosent agree with it , it ceases to be a rational argument.

Which comes back to: an educated mind being able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

To me being a critical thinker means questioning everything - that is all. I never go into anything with a fixed opinion.

If someone tells me the sky is blue ill think OK... to the naked eye yes.. but let me wait and see. Its black at night, whats the go there? 15 hours later im drooling from the mouth having gone off on 17 tangents and ended up on string theory heh
Pretty much basically yeah. I think I'll leave it here :p
 
Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
Pretty much basically yeah. I think I'll leave it here :p

i just had a quick read -

Not De Niros film, its De Niros film, festival...

He said he wanted the film in because he has an autisitc child and thinks this is a discussion that needs to be had - but stressed he is not anti vax at all.

Then he pulled it the next day after a wave of dissent over social media and what not.

bit clearer now
 
Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
Stephen Hawking Warns Humanity: Leave Earth Before the Ruling Class Destroys It.

United Kingdom — Humanity’s future is in peril thanks to so-called advancements in science and technology, claims Professor Stephen Hawking, who cited “nuclear war, global warming, and genetically-modified viruses” as deadly threats to our existence.
Hawking described various “things that could go wrong” to an audience of hundreds attending the first in a series of BBC Reith Lectures, which pertain to research about black holes. He asserted the necessity for colonization of other planets to ensure survival of the human species. According to the BBC, Hawking cautioned:

“Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year might be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years.
“By that time, we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race.
“However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period.”


Though it would seem counterproductive for such a well-respected scientist to decry scientific progress as humanity’s most existential threat, this isn’t the first time Hawking has advised us to exercise caution. Last summer, the theoretical physicist was among over 1,000 artificial intelligence experts who signed an open letter about the weaponization of robots and the ongoing “military artificial intelligence arms race” among the world’s military powers.
In October of last year, Hawking warned scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) about the potential for the Higgs Boson “God Particle” to initiate catastrophic vacuum decay — the formation of a quantum bubble that expands at the speed of light and could decimate the entire universe. Concern over the automation of the world’s workforce coupled with capitalist greed also earned the scientist’s stern alarm.
In fact, taken collectively, Hawking’s numerous warnings are aimed directly at the careless hubris of the ruling elites and their tendency to act in favor of profit — in a variety of fields — without consideration given to long-term consequences resulting from such hastily implemented projects.
Despite the numerous cautionary scenarios Hawking has proffered, he claims society will likely discover the means to cope.
“We are not going to stop making progress, or reverse it, so we have to recognize the dangers and control them,” he stated. “I’m an optimist, and I believe we can.
“It’s important to ensure that these changes are heading in the right directions. In a democratic society, this means that everyone needs to have a basic understanding of science to make informed decisions about the future.
“So communicate plainly what you are trying to do in science, and who knows, you might even end up understanding it yourself.”


Hawking’s theories, of course, haven’t escaped criticism; yet he does maintain a healthy enthusiasm, which was evidenced in this advice he offered young scientists:
“From my own perspective, it has been a glorious time to be alive and doing research in theoretical physics. There is nothing like the Eureka moment of discovering something that no one knew before.”

Best read in Microsoft voice.
 
Best read in Microsoft voice.

Did you know he trademarked that voice? He could upgrade to more sophisticated voice software, but he keeps that one because it is so closely associated with him. :)
 
Dec 14, 2008
19,797
32,195
AFL Club
Essendon
Did you know he trademarked that voice? He could upgrade to more sophisticated voice software, but he keeps that one because it is so closely associated with him. :)

i also didnt know he was British for a long time due to the computer voice accent being.... well i guess its American?

He should have a pompus English accent!
 
i also didnt know he was British for a long time due to the computer voice accent being.... well i guess its American?

He should have a pompus English accent!
Yup, sounds American to me too haha.

If you haven't watched 'The Theory of Everything'... it's an excellent movie about his life (so far). Stars Eddie Redmayne, who does an excellent job of portraying Steven Hawking as his condition progresses, I think. As far as I know the man and his family are pretty okay with it as well (although it's obviously a movie so some of the details may be inaccurate)...

goes through a lot of his theories and stuff as well I think. I ended up watching a LOT of interviews with him on youtube after watching that movie, so I might be confusing where I saw different things. Very interesting man though.
 
Back