rigorousintuition.ca

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:01 pm wrote:

Project Willow » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:48 pm wrote:

Mason I Bilderberg » 02 Jul 2013 11:38 wrote:
I'd like to find somebody who agrees with him on these points.

For what purpose? You could just as easily go through those points and state plainly your own views, without the entreaty. If someone responds, they respond, if not, you've said your piece.

I'll take that as you not believing in human-alien hybrids.

MIB

Some people, when they come across a Randi-worshipping pseudoskeptic dick pissing on their board might tell them to
fuck off back to JREF.

Of course, I'm not always sure who those people are, just that sometimes there are people like that... now I myself am certainly NOT one of those who thinks
You Are A Pompous Arrogant Tool.

For me, I think that your level of logical analysis is exceeded only by your empathy level.
I think I'm in love

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:11 pm wrote: Is there confusion? I'm here because my video became a topic of conversation. Many people support Icke. He fills large venues. I'm curious to know how an Icke supporter squares Icke's more bizarre beliefs (alien-human hybrids, human sacrifices, etc.) with their own.

Are you kidding? YES, there's confusion. If a (hypothetical) Icke supporter believes those things, those ARE the Icke supporter's own beliefs.

And if another (hypothetical) Icke supporter doesn't believe those things, I don't see why it should inherently be any more difficult for him/her to accommodate the conflict than it is for a (hypothetical) American who's against surveillance and war but pro-social-welfare-and-equality to support a politician some of whose views he or she rejects.

Necessarily. It might be, of course. But that's for the hypothetical persons to say. You can argue with the wisdom of their choices, obviously. What you can't do is just tell them what they chose, declare it invalid and call that argument. Because it's not.

All cult-like leaders fascinate me.

MIB

Not me. As I see it, it's their job to be fascinating and mine to be unfascinated.

MIB wrote: I'll take that as you not believing in human-alien hybrids.

MIB

I'll take this as you not understanding what I wrote. I'll restate. You are free to post your views about Icke. You are not free to approach other members of this board with any intention other than respectful dialogue.

(edited for formatting)

Searcher08 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:26 pm wrote:

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:01 pm wrote:

Project Willow » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:48 pm wrote:

Mason I Bilderberg » 02 Jul 2013 11:38 wrote:
I'd like to find somebody who agrees with him on these points.

For what purpose? You could just as easily go through those points and state plainly your own views, without the entreaty. If someone responds, they respond, if not, you've said your piece.

I'll take that as you not believing in human-alien hybrids.

MIB

Some people, when they come across a Randi-worshipping pseudoskeptic dick pissing on their board might tell them to
fuck off back to JREF.

Of course, I'm not always sure who those people are, just that sometimes there are people like that... now I myself am certainly NOT one of those who thinks
You Are A Pompous Arrogant Tool.

For me, I think that your level of logical analysis is exceeded only by your empathy level.
I think I'm in love

I know I'm in love

compared2what? » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:12 pm wrote:So I must be misunderstanding you. Please forgive me. Why this tremendous focus on whether people believe what Icke says? Rather than on what he says?

All i'm doing is asking a very clear question with specific references: "Who believes in human-alien hybrids controlling the world as espoused by David Icke?"

All i hear is tap dancing.

MIB

c2w wrote:

Why this tremendous focus on whether people believe what Icke says? Rather than on what he says?

I don't think you can even talk meaningful about Icke for very long unless you either believe or disbelieve his basic premise. I mean it is like talking about Copernicus and his theory of heliocentrism. You can talk about how articulate, charming, eccentric, persuasive, etc he is as a person and all the other fascinating topics he may touch on, but in the end you either believe the world revolves around the sun or vice versa, or perhaps are undecided.

The only reason Icke is even discussed is because he has a unified world historical conspiracy. The basic premise is that lizard-men in disguise have ruled the world for thousands of years. That is pretty clear. What isn't clear is whether people actually believe this literally and are willing to support Icke with evidence. I don't think people should be forced to say whether they believe this or not. But if you are going to debate and defend Icke I think you are obligated to make plain whether you believe his core theory or not. If you don't then I think you lose credibility and it soon becomes more about personality and forum politics.

To me it makes perfect sense to ask someone if they believe Icke. On a global warming thread someone arguing the contrarily opinion would not be surprised if they were asked whether or not they believed in global warming. Do you believe in lizard men seems like a fair opening in a thread about Icke.

seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:22 pm wrote:Conspiracy Theories Debunked....this link doesn't work either


I'd really like to know what other conspiracy theories you're debunking....this is not about you personally it's where you are coming from. like having a link to James Randi on your site tells me some but I'd like to know more....see some of us here have been at RI for a very very long time...we know each other extremely well and I can only speak for myself but someone just showing up one day and start asking a bunch of questions basically demanding answers is kinda impolite....I don't mind some of my fellow RIers holding my feet to the fire (even though I throw a hissy fit now and then) but a stranger just shows up and feels he is entitled is quite another situation...it's one thing to take some grief from AD it's another from someone I don not know at all. I love everyone here I've known them for years .....you've been here one day You are a stranger don't be put off because you are being treated like one

I'm not sure what my beliefs have to do with my questioning David Icke believers. It's like taking my car to Jiffy Lube and the technician wants to discuss my hair cut. My hair cut has nothing to do with my oil getting changed.

Everything i want known about me is contained in the "About Me" link at my blog.

MIB

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:21 pm wrote:

compared2what? » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:03 pm wrote:

Project Willow wrote:

Mason I Bilderberg » 02 Jul 2013 09:46 wrote:

Jerky » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:37 pm wrote:Mason I Bilderberg, you're behaving like an ass in this thread.

YOPJ

It's not about me.

True.

It's about what Icke believes

Yes.

and whether the people on this forum believe Icke.

Oh, is it really.

Are you saying that the individual beliefs of other people are properly a subject of general public concern to the point that demanding they come clean about what you suspect they believe is an A-OK thing to do?

^^That's a yes-or-no question. So if the reply doesn't answer it "yes" or "no," it's not an answer. It's just a reply. Also, just to save a step:

No. I am not demanding that you come clean about what you believe. I'm asking you to explain on what grounds you think something you said is true. That thing being this bolded part of what you wrote here:

It's about what Icke believes and whether the people on this forum believe Icke.

(I'd say "no," personally.)

Semantics, distraction, straw man, false choices, answering a question with a question . . .

Hm.

Well, I was only replying to one sentence. So that would be this question, presumably:

MIB wrote: It's about what Icke believes and whether the people on this forum believe Icke.

I'm not sure I really see the semantics, distraction, straw men, and false choices, either.

Oh! Wait a minute, wait a minute...

Sorry. Yes, I do. Thanks for making them plain.




My video showed up here. I'm curious how Icke supporters (if there are any) can square their support of Icke with his more bizarre assertions (specifically, human-alien hybrids exist and run the world). That's all there is to it. If you're not an Icke supporter, my curiosity doesn't apply to you.

MIB[/quote]

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:40 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:22 pm wrote:Conspiracy Theories Debunked....this link doesn't work either


I'd really like to know what other conspiracy theories you're debunking....this is not about you personally it's where you are coming from. like having a link to James Randi on your site tells me some but I'd like to know more....see some of us here have been at RI for a very very long time...we know each other extremely well and I can only speak for myself but someone just showing up one day and start asking a bunch of questions basically demanding answers is kinda impolite....I don't mind some of my fellow RIers holding my feet to the fire (even though I throw a hissy fit now and then) but a stranger just shows up and feels he is entitled is quite another situation...it's one thing to take some grief from AD it's another from someone I don not know at all. I love everyone here I've known them for years .....you've been here one day You are a stranger don't be put off because you are being treated like one

I'm not sure what my beliefs have to do with my questioning David Icke believers. It's like taking my car to Jiffy Lube and the technician wants to discuss my hair cut. My hair cut has nothing to do with my oil getting changed.

Everything i want known about me is contained in the "About Me" link at my blog.

MIB

again what gave you the impression you could just show up here one day, start asking questions and we'd all be obligated to answer?

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:33 pm wrote:

compared2what? » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:12 pm wrote:So I must be misunderstanding you. Please forgive me. Why this tremendous focus on whether people believe what Icke says? Rather than on what he says?

All i'm doing is asking a very clear question with specific references: "Who believes in human-alien hybrids controlling the world as espoused by David Icke?"

No. Until just now, all you were doing was asking a series of very clear questions about the specific beliefs of other specific people, as in:

Crazy:

• Annanuki aliens fought with aliens from Mars - the Annanuki won.
• The Annanuki cross-bred with humans. Now we have human-alien hybrids running the world.
• Princess Diana was a human sacrifice to a goddess of the same name.


Do you believe these things?

MIB

He says human-alien hybrids can shape shift from human to alien and back again.

This is what he says in the video. Do you believe these things?

MIB

and

In the video, between the times 6:55 - 7:55, Icke tells a story about a CIA guy who has to wear a sachet filled with a golden liquid. His body had been manipulated to require this drug to survive. If the patch (sachet) and the liquid are not replaced every 72 hours, this CIA agent begins to die.

Do you believe this story?

MIB

"Who believes" is another question.

All i hear is tap dancing.

MIB

Then you should get your hearing tested. II answered the question as you were then asking it. So did slim. SLAD declined to. But that's her business. And she didn't prevaricate about it. She did it straight out.

So you should have heard some other things.

compared2what? » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:28 pm wrote:

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:11 pm wrote: Is there confusion? I'm here because my video became a topic of conversation. Many people support Icke. He fills large venues. I'm curious to know how an Icke supporter squares Icke's more bizarre beliefs (alien-human hybrids, human sacrifices, etc.) with their own.

Are you kidding? YES, there's confusion. If a (hypothetical) Icke supporter believes those things, those ARE the Icke supporter's own beliefs.

And if another (hypothetical) Icke supporter doesn't believe those things, I don't see why it should inherently be any more difficult for him/her to accommodate the conflict than it is for a (hypothetical) American who's against surveillance and war but pro-social-welfare-and-equality to support a politician some of whose views he or she rejects.

We might be getting somewhere. Where you would accept a person's belief in alien-human hybrids and not ask questions, i would like to have a conversation with that person.

MIB

Project Willow » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:28 pm wrote:

MIB wrote: I'll take that as you not believing in human-alien hybrids.

MIB

I'll take this as you not understanding what I wrote. I'll restate. You are free to post your views about Icke. You are not free to approach other members of this board with any intention other than respectful dialogue.

(edited for formatting)

You can interpret it any way you want, but all i've done is ask specific questions citing very specific references and solicited responses.

If you don't have an answer to my question, why does that make ME disrespectful?

MIB

justdrew » 02 Jul 2013 13:21 wrote:

Mason I Bilderberg » 02 Jul 2013 13:11 wrote:

seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:56 pm wrote:I just find your website the complete antithesis of what Jeff Wells started here at RI and I am not very fond of your views on climate or James Randi among other things so when you show up here I believe I have the right to know where you are coming from in order to better understand your posts at RI.....Rigorous Intuition ....not debunk central

Is there confusion? I'm here because my video became a topic of conversation. Many people support Icke. He fills large venues. I'm curious to know how an Icke supporter squares Icke's more bizarre beliefs (alien-human hybrids, human sacrifices, etc.) with their own.

All cult-like leaders fascinate me.

MIB

Just because people listen to him doesn't mean that many actually "believe" much of what he says as "fact" - one could interpret the interest in his schtick as a normal human interest in story telling, aka folk tales. It would have an influence on people, but not the same way as fully "believing" it would. On the one hand I think his mythology contributes positively to a generalized skepticism regarding the "powers that be" while unfortunately also dis-empowering the individuals to really effect positive reform.

Mason I Bilderberg » 02 Jul 2013 13:55 wrote:... Where you would accept a person's belief in alien-human hybrids and not ask questions, i would like to have a conversation with that person.

MIB

such questions have been asked extensively. You'll find other threads here about the subject going back years.

don't make so many assumptions. If you're interested in the social anthropology of the matter, learn some interviewing skills.

You could find some commonalities of previous life experience among believers. but hey... What is your research premise? or are you just fishing?

and I'll just tell you: I personally don't think Icke has it right, except on some bits and pieces here and there included because constructing a modern mythology necessarily involves salting the story with some generally accepted truths (as well as some not generally accepted truths.)

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:55 pm wrote:

compared2what? » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:28 pm wrote:

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:11 pm wrote: Is there confusion? I'm here because my video became a topic of conversation. Many people support Icke. He fills large venues. I'm curious to know how an Icke supporter squares Icke's more bizarre beliefs (alien-human hybrids, human sacrifices, etc.) with their own.

Are you kidding? YES, there's confusion. If a (hypothetical) Icke supporter believes those things, those ARE the Icke supporter's own beliefs.

And if another (hypothetical) Icke supporter doesn't believe those things, I don't see why it should inherently be any more difficult for him/her to accommodate the conflict than it is for a (hypothetical) American who's against surveillance and war but pro-social-welfare-and-equality to support a politician some of whose views he or she rejects.

We might be getting somewhere. Where you would accept a person's belief in alien-human hybrids and not ask questions, i would like to have a conversation with that person.

MIB

I don't see anything about my preference for acceptance and non-question-asking in there. Because it's not there. It was the intrusive, aggressive, unwarranted questions about the individual beliefs of others I was objecting to, on stated grounds. Questions such as -- for example -- "How long is a piece of string?" and "What fresh hell is this?" and many, many others might well be both perfectly fine and very interesting.

I enjoy conversation. And I often profit from it, too. We probably just have different conversational approaches and skill sets. Because most people do.

Mason I Bilderberg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:00 pm wrote:

Project Willow » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:28 pm wrote:

MIB wrote: I'll take that as you not believing in human-alien hybrids.

MIB

I'll take this as you not understanding what I wrote. I'll restate. You are free to post your views about Icke. You are not free to approach other members of this board with any intention other than respectful dialogue.

(edited for formatting)

You can interpret it any way you want, but all i've done is ask specific questions citing very specific references and solicited responses.

If you don't have an answer to my question, why does that make ME disrespectful?

MIB

Disrespectful? You're asking questions, demanding answers and you haven't even gone through the prerequisite RI Initiation Rite yet...


I will give you a bit of a clue ....THERE ARE NO DAVID ICKE TRUE BELIEVERS HERE....contrary to what you've been told or assume....so maybe you are going to be disappointed cause nobody is going to engage in that conversation with you...