In defense of skeptical thinking

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: PPan-"At the risk of being undiplomatic..."

Postby bkkexile » Tue May 30, 2006 10:25 pm

Unfortunately, it appears that most modern day skeptics are self-appointed defenders of the Faith. <br><br>What grates me about these people is that they 'know' that alternative viewpoints can't be true.<br><br>It seems agnosticism is the preferrable model of thinking.....but I can't be sure.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
bkkexile
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Skepticism is safe.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue May 30, 2006 10:52 pm

The cryptocracy encourages blanket skepticism verging on nihilism because this neutralizes any potential resistance.<br><br>"I'm so clever that I won't believe anything until a perp is actually indicted and I've got a copy of his confession in my email."<br><br>Determining whether something is (probably) true or not requires leaving the psychic comfort zone of skepticism to expend the time and energy to do the research.<br><br>But the instant publishing of one's beliefs on a discussion board can expose you to being wrong and losing your credibility. I'll bet this makes many over-cautious about making assertions at all.<br><br>The objection I have to the Prof's glib dismissal is that I've done the homework and pointed directly at it to show that ACTIVE researching rationalism is the desired quality in thinking, not mere passive skepticism.<br><br>No biggie to me and if Prof isn't really interested that's ok.<br>I just hate to see a good mind unengaged and saying "I don't see it" when he's not even looking.<br><br>Ya can lead a horse to info but ya can't make him think....lol. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skepticism is safe.

Postby biaothanatoi » Wed May 31, 2006 12:44 am

I find it strange that people would identify as "a skeptic" or a "rational skeptic". <br><br>It seems to be a viewpoint along the lines of: "My current understanding of the world is so comprehensive that it permits me to assess the validity of things I know nothing about."<br><br>e.g. Being ignorant about a subject is no barrier to stating an opinion about that subject.<br><br>Ironically, "skepticism" is often practiced almost like a form of metaphysics. "Skeptics" think they have an intuitive grasp on the "essence" of truth (or a set of "universal" rules) and they measure other people's truth claims accordingly. Kant is spinning in his grave.<br><br>The "skeptic" rarely takes into account the partiality of his/her own experience - that their grasp of "truth" might be conditioned by their background, their class/race/gender/etc. S/he rarely considers that their worldview is contingent or constrained by limiting factors eg by the media, by the govt, by the social. <br><br>Calling yourself a "skeptic" is usually just an attempt to position yourself in debate as autonomous, rational, objective, etc. Basically it's just a rhetorical strategy, a way of speaking definitively on a range of topics without knowing what you are talking about. <p></p><i></i>
biaothanatoi
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: PPan-"At the risk of being undiplomatic..."

Postby professorpan » Wed May 31, 2006 2:22 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I gave you an extremely long RATIONAL justification for my assertion which you haven't touched. Perhaps the topic isn't compelling enough for you to expand on beyond your thumbs down but it is the most compelling topic to me and I really have spent the last few years reading 8 to 18 hours a day on it which is why I gave you that historical list justifying my statement.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, I've spent more than the past few years wallowing in the mucky world of deep politics and conspiracy theory. This isn't new territory to me. I was ordering books through the mail, reading freakin' photocopied pamphlets, and sending letters to researchers -- you know, those paper things that traveled via so-called "snail" mail. So pardon me if you bona fides don't do much to impress me that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>some</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> of your theories are 100% crackers.<br><br>As I've said, you are an astute observer and an excellent connect-the-dots analyst. It's just that you take it too far, and if we wind up connecting too many dots, all that's left is a blob of ink on the notebook page.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>*Simply that a movie title of 'Nacho Libre' uncharacteristically does nothing to sell it to the 14 to 25 year-old target audience and the plot is TOTALLY uncharacteristic for a Jack Black movie?<br><br>Now there is a Mexican popular resistance leader named NACHO being persecuted by the Mexican government (a division of USA, Inc.) and his spokeswomen-for-the-movement DAUGHTER named 'AMERICA' is carrying that flag.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Crackers, my friend. Find me a friggin' 14-to-25 year-old who knows ANYTHING about the internal Mexican politics. It makes zero sense. I could go into the multifold reasons why that particular analysis of yours is hooey. But honestly, I think most reasonable people -- even hardcore conspiracists like myself -- would not see a line between the dots. Not even a tentative line.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Professor Pan, do you 'believe' in Operation Mockingbird?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Of course I do. I've known about Mockinbird for longer than a few years, in fact. But whereas I do believe in CIA plants in the media, particularly news operations, I don't buy your worldview that Mockingbird operatives are puppetmasters overseeing everything from the evening news to shitty, brain-numbing piles of poop like Nacho Libre. Sorry. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The objection I have to the Prof's glib dismissal is that I've done the homework and pointed directly at it to show that ACTIVE researching rationalism is the desired quality in thinking, not mere passive skepticism.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I am 100% in favor of active researching rationalism, which is why I do not buy into Nacho Libre as psyop. I say your argument is tenuous at best, and the machinations involved in orchestrating a toss-away Jack Black film, with a subliminal undercurrent somehow tied to Mexican politics, and with the purpose of influencing the dorky preteen audience to give a fuck or pay attention one way or the other, is about as likely as Bill Frist running into a burning house to save a trapped kitten.<br><br>Sorry, Hugh. You're barking up the wrong tree with this one. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skepticism is safe.

Postby professorpan » Wed May 31, 2006 2:32 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I find it strange that people would identify as "a skeptic" or a "rational skeptic". <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I find it strange that some people just "believe" without the slightest tendency to think for themselves.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It seems to be a viewpoint along the lines of: "My current understanding of the world is so comprehensive that it permits me to assess the validity of things I know nothing about."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That is NOT skepticism. That is debunking, which is an entirely different tack. Did you even read the initial post? <br><br>But I do agree that some assholes -- Randi, Penn & Teller, and their CSICOP fundies -- have given the word skeptic a bad name. So I suggest using agnostic instead. <br><br>There is no need to believe or disbelieve something. One can say "insufficient evidence." One can lean in one direction or another without committing -- agnosticism. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Basically it's just a rhetorical strategy, a way of speaking definitively on a range of topics without knowing what you are talking about.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Again, you're not talking about skepticism here. I'm against arrogant bloviating (which will no doubt make my critics howl with laughter) and people talking shit about subjects they know nothing about. That's not skepticism, that's just simple assholism. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: from nuts to crackers, yum.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed May 31, 2006 3:47 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Crackers, my friend. Find me a friggin' 14-to-25 year-old who knows ANYTHING about the internal Mexican politics. It makes zero sense.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And making sure they STAY ignorant is important, right?<br><br>It sounds to me like you are stuck at this straw man of 'total control super-spooks' instead of looking at both the historical precedent and specific recent movie-to-psychopolitical event correlations like 'The Weather Man' (2005) or 'The Paperclip Project' (2001) or the ones I lined out in that thread called How to Not Be Diverted, Demoralized, or Diffused. I also lined out some examples in a thread called Keyword Hijackers and Parallel Distractors.<br><br>Diminishing the stature of or keeping invisible any anti-fascist freedom fighters is worth waving this stupid 'Nacho Libre' movie as a magician's other hand just to HIJACK SEARCH ENGINES.<br><br>If you've got a major film advertising campaign and reviews with the key search words 'Nacho' 'Libre', that makes it far less likely that someone will stumble on it by accident when just a few small websites are trying to tell the world about a Mexican freedom fighter named Nacho locked in jail, right?<br><br>You've heard the expression 'burying the dead twice'?<br><br>A recent movie about Johnny Cash whitewashes his blue-collar pro-labor social activism by making it a love story about as accurate as 'The Glenn Miller Story.' I read a review that said his 'man in black' persona meant he was just a bad boy. Sheesh. <br><br>Hell, the CIA tried to change the ending of Animal Farm!<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002229.html">www.defensetech.org/archives/002229.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Global warming has been refuted for over 10 years and we recently got 'Ice Age' and 'March of the Penguins' to give tots a rosy view of the planet and assuage their parent's fears some, too.<br><br>Another good example: The Manchurian Candidate. <br><br>"Oooh, those inscrutable Chinese monsters. <br>Our pilots couldn't have possibly been dropping biological weapons on Korea so they must've been brainwashed."<br>Well, they really were dropping biological weapons on Korean peasant villages and causing all kinds of diseases.<br><br>You know that movies and war have gone together since movies came about, right?<br><br>The Pentagon tells movie makers how the US military will be portrayed and they do it.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/holl-m14.shtml">www.wsws.org/articles/200...-m14.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It is well known that overtly militaristic and patriotic films with Rambo-like heroes boost military recruitment. According to the navy, recruitment of young men into naval aviation increased by 500 percent after the release of Top Gun. Such was the military’s enthusiasm for Top Gun that it even established recruitment booths inside some of the cinemas screening the movie. “These kids came out of the movie with eyes as big as saucers and said, ‘Where do I sign up?’” declared Major David Georgi.<br>....<br>in the almost 60 years since the DOD film liaison office was established, there have been only two government hearings into Pentagon interference in the movie industry. Both resulted in whitewashes, clearing the military of any wrongdoing.<br><br>As for the WGA (Writers Guild of America), it has never even issued a public statement opposing Pentagon censorship of scripts. WGA West president Charles Holland, a former army officer, told Robb: <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>“If you want people to go into firefights, you’ve got to romanticise it.”</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And the movies are for recruiting by making male heroes whose team boys are supposed to join for that ole male bonding thing.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/wtc12.html">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/wtc12.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And that is exactly what 'Chicken Little' teaches to tots.<br>"Make Dad proud, get on the team, win the big game."<br>Gender identity, all the females in 'Chicken Little' are kooky, hostile, or missing. No mom. All male revue.<br><br>Even Disney? Especially fucking Disney.<br>A week or two ago I read a post by DreamsEnd where he said that he took neices and nephews to 'Chicken Little' and he found the movie to be somehow disturbing and not really good for kids.<br>DE sensed what I'm talking about.<br><br>Preventing understanding of psychology is something that Bertrand Russel wrote in the 1930s would be an elite tactic as mass psychology became the most important tool of governance. Scientology, which is rife in Hollywood, is also vehemently hostile to shrinks. Scientology has also been taken over by the CIA.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm">www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.c...st-cia.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Oh, look. Shrinks are evil in films.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://siop.org/TIP/backissues/tipoct98/9Waclawski.htm">siop.org/TIP/backissues/t...lawski.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>In fact, it would make sense that the entertainment propaganda would be far more controlled and targeted due to only 5 conglomerates owning every damn thing we see or hear and with even more motivation to counter subversive info we are soaking up on the internet.<br><br>All while trying to sustain another Vietnam war and massive outsourcing of jobs. <br><br>Oh, and working to rationalize post-Cold War militarism while lowering employment expectations.<br><br>There's a lot to accomplish, Prof.<br><br>I wasn't making it up when I wrote that Borders was chock full of rereleases of warm fuzzy dog movies just when the MP was on trial for letting attack dogs bite Abu Ghraib prisoners. There was even a new dog magazine at the grocery check-out chute which is CIA territory.<br><br>You think that's a coincidence? <br><br>Right now the CIA media managers must be wondering which sparks, if any, are going to ignite from the internet's pool of suppressed information since they've spent the last 35 years vigorously re-militarizing our culture and giving kids piles of entertainment chaff to make sure they don't acquire enough wheat to nourish and sustain the peace and justice movements of the 1960s.<br><br>Look at how many violent action figure girl characters you see now. And they all have that distinctly military color of olive drab.<br>There's a cartoon character called 'Kim Possible' who is a cheerleader by day (gotta have the pink princess gender role) but fights crime at night.<br><br>This is social engineering to both get female recruits and normalize 'fighting bad guys' as a police-state bogus War on Terror cultural norm validating a viewpoint that embraces militarism to counter a dangerous world.<br><br>I see tiny kids in camoflage-colored clothes everywhere lately.<br>Think that's a coincidence? Who is putting those on the store shelves.<br><br>Good lawd, I could go on and on. <br><br>So the doctrines, precedent, motivations, and evidence of movies as CIA-Pentagon propaganda are all there. Couldn't be more obvious and is entirely logical.<br><br>If ya still don't see it, I guess ya won't. But this is far from nuts and crackers and maybe I gave you something to sink your teeth into.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 5/31/06 1:59 am<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Amen bvonahsen - This turned out to be an excellent thread

Postby NavnDansk » Wed May 31, 2006 4:31 am

Professor Pan started a thread of his own! <br><br> "Well, I think the larger point is that I, and apparently others too, don't feel like you listen. We tend to feel that you just reflexively say "That's nuts" to anything you don't agree with or that is counter to your worldview. If nothing else, labeling what someone says as "nuts" is dissmisive and rude and you are not likely to get your point across that way. A little diplomacy might help.<br><br>I understand that you may feel differently. That you may feel like you are open to possibilities, just not in the extreme. All I'm saying is that I'm not getting that on this end of the wire.<br><br>Skepticism is nice and all but the reason I come here is to confront my own hardened model of the universe, to exercise my credulity, to challenge my beliefs. I'm fairly well educated and well read. Especially in the philosophy and history of math and science and I guess I kind of enjoy having my reality cracked open a bit. I think it's good for you.<br><br>That doesn't mean I buy into everything I read here or even discuss. I try ideas out, see if they fit and I tend to put things into catagories and make distinctions. Like....knowing vs believing or feeling vs thoughts.<br><br>Are there UFOs, abductions, remote viewers, psychic abilities, secret plans to rule the world? Hell, I don't know and I'm not absolutely sure they aren't impossible. But I want to talk about these.... I guess they are stories... I want to talk about them without getting dismissed as "nuts" everytime I turn around. kay? "<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START |I --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
NavnDansk
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

the Good War

Postby TroubleFunk » Wed May 31, 2006 8:34 am

Hugh, did you read Studs Terkel's GOOD WAR? I'm 3/4 of the way through it, and damn near everyone in this oral history is quite aware that they were either lying or being lied to about WWII. Most of the government people are aware they were involved in propaganda, and most of the underlings are now aware they were being brainwashed and coerced. The whole book makes a very good case for what you're saying - and the PTB hadn't even mastered it yet at that point. <p></p><i></i>
TroubleFunk
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Crackers, nuts, and nachos

Postby professorpan » Wed May 31, 2006 11:15 am

Hugh, do you or have you ever known anyone in the movie business? If you did, you'd realize how baseless your overwrought theorizing really is.<br><br>All it takes is a little bit of research to find interviews with the writers of the film. They talk about their fascination with lucha (Mexican wrestling) and how the story is based upon the true story of a priest who becomes a luchador to save an orphanage. You can read one of many articles about the film here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/movies/28beal.html?_r=1&ex=1148875200&en=bf9b41d3012d87d6&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin">www.nytimes.com/2006/05/2...ref=slogin</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>But of course, it's the New York Times, so the Mockingbirds must have gotten their hands on this one. It's tainted and can't be trusted. And the writers? Liars. Or they've been coerced by studio goons into making up a story about the origins of the film. It wasn't simply an idea to make a funny movie about lucha at all -- no sir. It was a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>remote viewed, massively orchestrated plot to keyword hijack the name "Nacho" to prevent 12-34 year-old dorks and doofuses from learning about Mexican dissidents -- in the future!</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Because Nacho Libre was in the works long before May of 2006 -- when Nacho del Valle first entered the U.S. search engines as a result of a campesino rebellion. <br><br>So here's how it worked -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Hugh.<br><br>Mockingbird operatives at the major film studios have been following Mexican campesino politics closely, aided by their CIA buddies on the ground in San Salvador Atenco. Of particular interest was Nacho del Valle, leader of the Popular Front for the Defense of the Land. Remote viewers deep in Langley foresaw that this Nacho character would become more of a nuisance to the powers-that-be, and they feared his resistance movement would catch fire, igniting the passions of 12-34 year-old doofuses -- the guys who normally would spend their days playing Grand Theft Auto and watching Girls Gone Wild in their parents' basements -- turning the normally docile dudes into raging human rights advocates for the poor people of Mexico. It was brilliant predictive analysis. <br><br>So they wrangle up some writers and creative types -- some guys that worked on Freaks & Geeks (Mockingbird plot to marginalize "geeks" and keep them suppressed) and "Napoleon Dynamite" (do you see a trend here?), and said, "Hey, guys, we want you to do a project for us. Doesn't matter what you write about, as long as it has the word 'nacho' in the title."<br><br>"How about I we get Jack Black in a unitard?" CIA operative/comedy writer Mike White says. "I've always wanted to see him in a wrestling mask."<br><br>"Brilliant," Mockingbird one says. "Here's your bag of CIA cash."<br><br>As predicted, Nacho del Valle gets arrested and jailed in May, hitting the English language searches right before the premier of the film. Furious dorks, their political consciousnesses cracked open by recent events in Mexico, type "Nacho" into the search engines to gather more information about the unfolding campesino revolt. All they get, alas, is links to Nacho Libre, coupons for 7/11 nachos, and links to Tostitos.com. <br><br>Saddened and frustrated by the lack of insightful commentary on the peasant revolt and subsequent crackdown, they give up, turn off the computer, and return to Girls Gone Wild 7: Cancun Fever.<br><br>Yep. That's how it works. Another brilliant Mockingbird assault on truth and human rights. <br><br>Okay, Hugh, you've swayed me. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=professorpan>professorpan</A> at: 5/31/06 9:28 am<br></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Amen bvonahsen - This turned out to be an excellent thre

Postby professorpan » Wed May 31, 2006 11:21 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Professor Pan started a thread of his own! <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I've started hundreds of threads on my own. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Are there UFOs, abductions, remote viewers, psychic abilities, secret plans to rule the world? Hell, I don't know and I'm not absolutely sure they aren't impossible. But I want to talk about these.... I guess they are stories... I want to talk about them without getting dismissed as "nuts" everytime I turn around. kay?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Jebus, people. Talk about anything you want, 'kay?<br><br>But when people start pushing theories as facts, they shouldn't be surprised or offended when someone questions their theories.<br><br>True seekers don't mind questions. Ideologues and those constrained by mental straitjackets or ironclad belief systems <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>hate</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> questions, particularly when those questions take their dearly-held "truths" to task. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: from nuts to crackers, yum.

Postby professorpan » Wed May 31, 2006 11:25 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I wasn't making it up when I wrote that Borders was chock full of rereleases of warm fuzzy dog movies just when the MP was on trial for letting attack dogs bite Abu Ghraib prisoners. There was even a new dog magazine at the grocery check-out chute which is CIA territory.<br><br>You think that's a coincidence? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Of course it is.<br><br>The "grocery check-out chute... is CIA territory?"<br><br>Please tell me you're kidding. The CIA wants me to worry about Brad and Angelina's latest fracas?<br><br>No, wait a minute. They sell bags of NACHOS in that aisle!<br><br>Oh, my God! The horror! The <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>horror!</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Penguins

Postby professorpan » Wed May 31, 2006 12:44 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Global warming has been refuted for over 10 years and we recently got 'Ice Age' and 'March of the Penguins' to give tots a rosy view of the planet and assuage their parent's fears some, too.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I don't understand what you're saying here, Hugh. Global warming refuted? So you buy into the Exxon-sponsored "skeptics" and the "carbon dioxide is good for you" camp?<br><br>And let me see if I understand this: both "Ice Age" and "March of the Penguins" were created to drive home the agenda that global warming is nothing to worry about? How does this fit in with your idea that global warming has been refuted?<br><br>And do you really -- seriously -- believe that somone (or some group) decides to make a documentary about penguins, and then convinces the French director Luc Jacquet to go along with their plot?<br><br>I'm sorry, Hugh, but your theories about nearly *every* film being a Machiavellian tool of thought control falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. Either that, or every director, writer, and producer is a baldfaced liar.<br><br>Take a gander at the interview with Jacquet, for instance. What's the most reasonable answer -- that he's telling the truth? Or that he's a lying Mockingbird collaborator?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>A CONVERSATION WITH DIRECTOR<br>LUC JACQUET<br><br><br>How does one become the director of a film like "March of the Penguins"?<br><br>Obviously, totally by chance. It all began with a classified ad which basically said something like "looking for fearless biologist, ready to spend fourteen months at the end of the world"… Of course, I had studied biology, in particular animal behavior, and I wanted to become a scientist. But I was as attracted to nature and adventure as I was to roughing it in extreme conditions, so this kind of premise was very appealing to me. At the time, the assignment was to film images of emperor penguins… The only problem was that I had never held a camera in my life. So I started with a ten-day training period to learn how to film with a 35mm camera. Then I left for my first stay at the Dumont d'Urville French Antarctic station with two assignments: to band the birds, and to film a very precise list of shots. At the time, I was 24.<br><br>Weren't you put off by the fact that you were starting in such extreme conditions?<br><br>No, not at all. I was born in Eastern France, in the Jura mountains, and started skiing when I was three years old. So I already had experienced the cold. In the end, I was not that interested in the academic side of research, which required devoting much more effort to interpretation, instead of working in the field, which I preferred. And it was a friend who came back from shooting a documentary on orcas in Crozet Island, in the French Antarctic Territories, who gave me the idea for my first film "Sea Leopard, Lord of the Ice." Everything took off after this, and there were many trips to the Antarctic. Twelve years later, I am still roaming around the 66th parallel. <br><br>How did "March of the Penguins" evolve?<br><br>I started this project four years ago, and slowly, over months, it began taking shape. The producers (Bonne Pioche) came on in August and we were leaving for production in January, so everything went at top speed. In the middle of winter, the story evolved. We all agreed with enormous enthusiasm - which was an incredible driving force - that what was originally intended to be a television film needed to become a feature-length theatrical film. With challenges at every level of the production, this became a rare adventure. There was a huge desire to make this work, along with a determination and an energy that, at times, made the whole thing feel like a military operation. But it was all pleasure in the end. I had this pure and simple, very straightforward story of survival for this cursed species. I knew where and when to film and had completed my filming breakdown. The only thing left to do was to wait and rely on the actors. We knew what was going to happen, where and with whom, but we did not know exactly "how" it was going to unfold. You have to remember that this is Antarctica, and that penguins are animals. <br><br>Why do you say "cursed species"?<br><br>Because the emperor penguin is a fabulous creature evolving in the open seas, capable of diving as deep as 1,400 feet for as long as 20 minutes. But in order to breed, for some unknown reason, this extraordinary creature pays an enormous price for all his majesty, and finds himself walking like a penitent for miles upon miles in the blizzards of Antarctica, far from the ocean, just to lay one egg. He does this in the most stable environment he can find, and then goes back and forth all winter between the colony where his life is hellish, and the sea where he finds his sustenance! There are only a few dozen places where he can lay his eggs, no more. So the emperor penguin lives his life on the edge. There is no life beyond him. We are almost in the realm of biotics. There are no living cells in Antarctica, and in this white desert, the emperor is the sentinel, the last living element on the planet - assuming we are still on the same planet. Although Antarctica is not yet space, it is almost no longer earth! We are on the border between reality and fantasy. Emperor penguins, desert nomads… nature creates mirages. All our references are gone, or simply reversed, even the seasons are reversed. If you haven't experienced freezing 100-mile an hour (162 kph) winds, it is hard to imagine what it is like. I tried to juggle with all these fantastic elements. I created surreal images with reality. And I attempted to take the viewer along like a father or a mother takes his child on a journey with a bedtime story. The penguin is an extraordinarily endearing creature, who despite being an animal occasionally has striking human qualities. And filmically, there are many twists and turns in the story. In some years, up to eighty percent of the chicks die. <br><br>Were there unexpected dangers?<br><br>Yes. For instance, if you get too close to the colony, then hundreds of eggs can be lost. This is something that gives you a great sense of responsibility. I've never witnessed anyone being attacked. This is probably because it would "cost" the emperor too much energy which he cannot afford to lose, considering everything he has to deal with. The emperor penguin has a very peculiar relationship to man. One day, he'll let you approach, and the next he won't. So you have to be on your best behavior, because if you don't respect him, you won't get any images of him. You always have to manage what's going on. There's a saying which goes something like this: "If you want to dominate nature, you have to obey it." You have to have smarts!<br><br>How long did the shoot last?<br><br>One year and 120 hours of images. A whole winter-over cycle, the cycle of the emperor. And this without seeing any of the images as we were progressing. Neither the men, nor the footage left the shoot before the story wrapped. It took me a year to recover. Re-entry is a long process. <br><br>Is global warming (which ranges from 4° to 10° depending on the region) a menace for the penguins?<br><br>It is clear that if the sea ice shrinks, the penguins will not have to walk as far to get to the ocean. By the same token, they'll have less to eat. Many species - seals, whales, penguins, among others - feed on krill, and because the winter ice has been melting, and the krill feed on algae which grows under the sea ice, there is less krill. This is just one proof that climate change has immediate consequences. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: from nuts to crackers, yum.

Postby bvonahsen » Wed May 31, 2006 3:18 pm

Ya know, I could use a good glossary. I only understand about half of what is said sometimes. "Project Mocking Bird"? CISCOP? <br><br>Yeah, google is my friend and I now know (via google and wikipedia) what they are about but only in general. There is also more to RI than just this discussion and I have read through a few of the other subjects here. But man, there is a lot there!<br><br>Why I'm here is because I'm trying to figure our what in the world is going on these days. RI operates on the fring of things and explores anomolous events and promises a sort of "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" (I just love Blake) between rationalistic rigor free floating intuition. That really interests me because I believe, but I'm not quite sure, that there may be other pathways to knowledge than the scientific method. Various shaminist traditions seem to have a deep knowledge of plants that they should not have been able to have discovered given their level of techology, yet they do have this knowledge. <br><br>(well now... that was an awkward sentence, but you know what I meant, I hope)<br><br>Anyway, to get back to the topic. I'm really with you most of the time prof. I just think you could do with a little more diplomacy. You seem to reject that. Ok, then be content with the consequences of your behavior then. You started this thread, if you're catching a little heat and you refuse to be tactfull, I guess that's your problem right? <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Re: from nuts to crackers, yum.

Postby professorpan » Wed May 31, 2006 4:23 pm

I strive to be diplomatic. I don't call people names unless they call me names. I may call an idea bunk, goofy, unsupported crapola. But I'll never say a person is anything other than a sincere individual.<br><br>Here's what I see happening.<br><br>Someone posts something. Maybe it's Hugh with his Nacho Libre Theory of Media Mockinbird Control (NLTMMC). I think it's a corn chip shy of a bag of Fritos, so I say so. I usually explain why I disagree, and often ask a few questions.<br><br>Then the person posing the theory gets offended -- often because the theory represents a deeply-held worldview. I'm then accused of one or more of the following sins:<br><br>• Being a debunker, a bloviating windbag (possibly true), a disinfo agent (thankfully Jeff enforces a policy against that), or just a rude jackass.<br><br>• Attempting to define the borders of what is acceptable for discussion<br><br>• Stifling speculation or just thinking-out-loud mental riffs<br><br>• Somehow smearing or defaming the character of the person in question<br><br>• Not having an "open mind"<br><br>I don't care what people discuss. If it catches my eye and engages me, I might reply. I have no axe to grind, but if I think something is absurd I'll say so. I'll probably say <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>why</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> I think it's absurd. <br><br>But I also spend plenty of posts thanking people for bringing useful information to light. That's why I frequent these parts. <br><br>Most people who have been on this board for a while know I avoid personal attacks, even when I'm getting tarred a Satanist, a troll, and told to go orally pleasure myself. I learned long ago that flame wars of the "you're a jerk -- no, you're a jerk!" variety are a tremendous waste of everyone's time. I also learned that someone can rip apart a theory of mine without destroying my ego. In fact, I am grateful when someone dismantles one of my pet theories. It's how I learn to be more rigorous in my thinking.<br><br>Beliefs are emotionally-laden, particularly deeply-held beliefs about how the world operates. When someone challenges those beliefs, it's normal to feel as if the person is challenging you and not your beliefs. But that's false, and ultimately counterproductive and time-wasting.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

re: from nuts to crackers

Postby Sarutama » Wed May 31, 2006 5:53 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Take a gander at the interview with Jacquet, for instance. What's the most reasonable answer -- that he's telling the truth? Or that he's a lying Mockingbird collaborator?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think this is a very important statement. Occam's razor needs to do a little trimming around the RI edges if you will. <p></p><i></i>
Sarutama
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests