- Dec 14, 2008
- 19,797
- 32,195
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Thread starter
- #76
3 pages of conspiracy theories and not one mention of the Rothschilds? Disappointing.
Implied
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
3 pages of conspiracy theories and not one mention of the Rothschilds? Disappointing.
The most basic tenet of philosophy is that you can argue any bullshit you want as long as its logically sound.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?
It's an interesting question.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?
http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/autism_spectrum_disorder_overview.htmlAutism 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:
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.
- 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.
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.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
"You are not entitled to your opinion; you are only entitled to what you can argue for."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.
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.
Pretty much basically yeah. I think I'll leave it hereMost 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
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.
Yup, sounds American to me too haha.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!