Possible world wide revolution?

Uzima Moto wrote: Debunked where? From what I'm looking at the point still stands that they had their own interests in mind.. any of those proposals put civilian lives at possible risk in order to start a war. It's the same type of deception as Iraq or 9/11..

The reason you see things the way you do is because you operate from a place of fear while I operate from a place of vigilance. Fear breeds biased distrust, vigilance breeds proper judgement.

Uzima Moto wrote: If you truly understood the Supernatural understanding of The Force. You would know that it isn't exclusively external.. "The kingdom is within and without" as the teaching goes...

Are you using bible references now to prove your points? The circular reasoning in strong with you young Moto.

Uzima Moto wrote: You would know that Supernatural isn't opposed to science or the natural world. It defines a reality that is beyond our material perception.

These two statements are in direct opposition with one another.

Uzima Moto wrote: That the energy that forms atoms and molecules comes from a much deeper and more subtle source..

And if you actually had any proof of this assertion you would have the Nobel prize. Wishful thinking and assertion do not science make.

Uzima Moto wrote: You assert definitively that there is NO POWER BEYOND THE NATURAL. Yet there is no proof or truth to that reasoning..

Did you forget to read my last post where I actually explained that this is not my position? I suggest you actually go back and do your due diligence. I have made no claims here, I have only rejected your extraordinary claims because you provide an utter lack of evidence to support them. The burden of proof is on the claimant not the rejecter of the claim.

Uzima Moto wrote: to think that an entity can attach itself to your energy and drain you without you ever being aware is horrifying to a degree...

Can you define “entity”? Can you define the term “energy”? Can define the process of draining? Can you even show evidence that any of this exists?

Uzima Moto wrote: Kyrin, your attempts at killing anyone's ideas here have been half-cocked at best. You haven't provided ANYTHING AT ALL to back your accusations. You claim these ideas to be completely false? Well, the burden of proof is on you. SO PROVE IT.. if not, get off this thread..

The logical fallacy is also strong with you I see. You are trying to shift the burden of proof here and that will not fly. You are the claimant, it is your responsibility to provide the proof of your claims. I have no standing in that regard. I have never asserted that the things you claim cant be true I have only rejected your claims that they are true due to your complete lack of evidence. You are not really very good at this debate thing are you.

Uzima Moto wrote: better yet, go back to your so called "jedaii" order.. the fact that you based your order on a crappy comic is telling. Itself based on a misinterpretation of the ideas being conveyed by George Lucus.. The Force as the idea was originally pulled from history is defined as Light/Life. The Dark was the willful perversion of The Force.. balance was the elimination of the perversion. Not an equilibrium between "light and shadow". Again, that comes from a long held and common misconception to equate the "feminine" aspects of reality, The Force, as dark..

It isn't my place to kick you out entirely.. but you have constantly shown yourself as opposed to Jedi ideals and the very foundations of our knowledge. You're also attempting to supplement them with your own ideals. If you were allowed to train Jedi here. The stench of your values would undoubtedly begin to reek throughout this temple. It could even lead to a schism, or at least a breaking away.. your presence here, as far as I've seen, hasn't been beneficial to the Temple..

Well it’s a good thing your opinion is irrelevant to my presence here. You don’t get to make that call do you. And the fact that you now feel the need to personally attack my path in retaliation for my sound beating of your arguments is quite telling. But even in your evaluation of my path you clearly show your ignorance and lack of ability to do any sort of research into the subject your claiming to have so much knowledge of. Your character as a Jedi is in question here moto, I suggest you step back and reevaluate. You have been soundly defeated, the only honorable course of action for you now is to gracefully walk away. But I have no doubt you will fail to see the truth in this as well.

Reminder

R - take Responsibility for what you say and feel without blaming others
E - use Empathetic listening
S - be Sensitive to differences in communication styles
P - Ponder what you read and feel before you speak
E - Examine your own assumptions and perceptions
C - be Civil in your interactions with others
T - Trust ambiguity, because it can be difficult to communicate meaning

(Adapted from "The Bush Was Blazing But Not Consumed," by Eric H. F. Law)

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Debunked where? From what I'm looking at the point still stands that they had their own interests in mind.. any of those proposals put civilian lives at possible risk in order to start a war. It's the same type of deception as Iraq or 9/11..

The reason you see things the way you do is because you operate from a place of fear while I operate from a place of vigilance. Fear breeds biased distrust, vigilance breeds proper judgement.

Uzima Moto wrote: If you truly understood the Supernatural understanding of The Force. You would know that it isn't exclusively external.. "The kingdom is within and without" as the teaching goes...

Are you using bible references now to prove your points? The circular reasoning in strong with you young Moto.

Uzima Moto wrote: You would know that Supernatural isn't opposed to science or the natural world. It defines a reality that is beyond our material perception.

These two statements are in direct opposition with one another.

Uzima Moto wrote: That the energy that forms atoms and molecules comes from a much deeper and more subtle source..

And if you actually had any proof of this assertion you would have the Nobel prize. Wishful thinking and assertion do not science make.

Uzima Moto wrote: You assert definitively that there is NO POWER BEYOND THE NATURAL. Yet there is no proof or truth to that reasoning..

Did you forget to read my last post where I actually explained that this is not my position? I suggest you actually go back and do your due diligence. I have made no claims here, I have only rejected your extraordinary claims because you provide an utter lack of evidence to support them. The burden of proof is on the claimant not the rejecter of the claim.

Uzima Moto wrote: to think that an entity can attach itself to your energy and drain you without you ever being aware is horrifying to a degree...

Can you define “entity”? Can you define the term “energy”? Can define the process of draining? Can you even show evidence that any of this exists?

Uzima Moto wrote: Kyrin, your attempts at killing anyone's ideas here have been half-cocked at best. You haven't provided ANYTHING AT ALL to back your accusations. You claim these ideas to be completely false? Well, the burden of proof is on you. SO PROVE IT.. if not, get off this thread..

The logical fallacy is also strong with you I see. You are trying to shift the burden of proof here and that will not fly. You are the claimant, it is your responsibility to provide the proof of your claims. I have no standing in that regard. I have never asserted that the things you claim cant be true I have only rejected your claims that they are true due to your complete lack of evidence. You are not really very good at this debate thing are you.

Uzima Moto wrote: better yet, go back to your so called "jedaii" order.. the fact that you based your order on a crappy comic is telling. Itself based on a misinterpretation of the ideas being conveyed by George Lucus.. The Force as the idea was originally pulled from history is defined as Light/Life. The Dark was the willful perversion of The Force.. balance was the elimination of the perversion. Not an equilibrium between "light and shadow". Again, that comes from a long held and common misconception to equate the "feminine" aspects of reality, The Force, as dark..

It isn't my place to kick you out entirely.. but you have constantly shown yourself as opposed to Jedi ideals and the very foundations of our knowledge. You're also attempting to supplement them with your own ideals. If you were allowed to train Jedi here. The stench of your values would undoubtedly begin to reek throughout this temple. It could even lead to a schism, or at least a breaking away.. your presence here, as far as I've seen, hasn't been beneficial to the Temple..

Well it’s a good thing your opinion is irrelevant to my presence here. You don’t get to make that call do you. And the fact that you now feel the need to personally attack my path in retaliation for my sound beating of your arguments is quite telling. But even in your evaluation of my path you clearly show your ignorance and lack of ability to do any sort of research into the subject your claiming to have so much knowledge of. Your character as a Jedi is in question here moto, I suggest you step back and reevaluate. You have been soundly defeated, the only honorable course of action for you now is to gracefully walk away. But I have no doubt you will fail to see the truth in this as well.

You have made the accusation plenty of times in this "CONSPIRACY" thread that ideas of "conspiracy theories" are false by definition. If you have proof to back these accusations that's fine. Though, from what you've provided so far, you're position lacks merit.. if you call this winning I'd hate to lose in your shoes.. You are basically calling the premise of this entire thread false and demand that people provide a defense against your attacks.. you flipped the script first. I'm correcting that mistake..

And your decision to basically construct your own order in the way you did revealed a lot. Almost like you created a personal echo-chamber..

I've done plenty enough research to UNDERSTAND what I'm dealing with.. and your attempts to rebuke me only revealed how little of my point you actually understood..

My words are only contradictory from YOUR vantage point. Not in their actual meaning. You, however, play as if you are a true objective observer, but you constantly reveal your bias against "woo". Even tried to use it as moral highground, and almost suggested that there is an excuse for suppression. THAT is not being objective. You have, very ungracefully, battled and bullied on the very edge of accepted policy here.. but still have yet to have a real victory against the premise of this thread.. you have attack the character of these ideas. Bringing people's character to question in the process.. but that's because, as you say, you have no real proof to refute the point.. and nobody on this "CONSPIRACY" thread has the obligation to defend against your accusations..

The only defeat here is yours, if any. This isn't a competition for me. I'm only trying to spread truth and knowledge to others who are willing.. if you're such a researcher. Why don't you fact-check the videos I provided, kyrin?

Uzima Moto wrote: You have made the accusation plenty of times in this "CONSPIRACY" thread that ideas of "conspiracy theories" are false by definition.

DEFINITION OF A CONSPIACY THEORY: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. These theories are without credible evidence. They consist of a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof." Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy, therefore the conspiracy theory claims are false by definition.

This is your first logical fallacy

Uzima Moto wrote: If you have proof to back these accusations that's fine. Though, from what you've provided so far, you're position lacks merit.. if you call this winning I'd hate to lose in your shoes.. You are basically calling the premise of this entire thread false and demand that people provide a defense against your attacks.. you flipped the script first. I'm correcting that mistake.

DEFINITION OF BURDEN OF PROOF: The burden of proof is the obligation of the party making the conspiracy claim to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

This is your second logical fallacy

Uzima Moto wrote: And your decision to basically construct your own order in the way you did revealed a lot. Almost like you created a personal echo-chamber..

DEFINITION OF AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK: Ad hominem attack is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself

This is your third logical fallacy.

Uzima Moto wrote: I've done plenty enough research to UNDERSTAND what I'm dealing with.. and your attempts to rebuke me only revealed how little of my point you actually understood..

My words are only contradictory from YOUR vantage point. Not in their actual meaning. You, however, play as if you are a true objective observer, but you constantly reveal your bias against "woo". Even tried to use it as moral highground, and almost suggested that there is an excuse for suppression. THAT is not being objective.

DEFINITION OF ARGUMENT FROM ASSERTION: proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Its repetition is be cited as evidence of its truth. this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted and can also be used as a form of brainwashing.

DEFINITION OF ARGUMENT AD NAUSEUM: Ad nauseam is an argument or other assertion that is being made that has continued 'to the point of nausea'. It is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. An ad nauseam argument that can be easily shown to be false leads to the "point refuted a thousand times".

These are your fourth and fifth logical fallacies

Need I go on?

You see, the issue with debating conspiracy theories and conjecture about such with someone who wants to believe in them is that they will find proof, even if its not real proof, for their position.

Same reason for many faiths, or lack thereof. One trying to prove them wrong simply is viewed as ignorant or unwilling, or even worse, part of a greater cover-up conspiracy.

Best save your breath, either way. There is always better things to be doing than beating one's own forehead into a brick wall trying to convince it that it of anything.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: DEFINITION OF A CONSPIACY THEORY: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. These theories are without credible evidence. They consist of a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof." Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy, therefore the conspiracy theory claims are false by definition.

This is your first logical fallacy

No, Kyrin, this one is actually yours. A conspiracy theory is not by definition without credible evidence. Much like other theories, they are descriptions. Most are baseless, but some describe real events that do or did occur, and for a subset of those we actually have full documentation of the actual conspiracy asserted by the theory. Some conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable and as such warrant neither investigation nor consideration. Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structures of argument, leaving a gap between the premises and the conclusion. Informal fallacies are unproductive debate tactics like shifting the goal post, or the burden of proof. Unfalsifiability is not a logical fallacy of either kind. And if it was, that would be irrelevant, because an argument being fallacious does not make its conclusion false. To make that inference is actually itself a formal fallacy called argumentum ad logicam.

Uzima Moto wrote: If you have proof to back these accusations that's fine. Though, from what you've provided so far, you're position lacks merit.. if you call this winning I'd hate to lose in your shoes.. You are basically calling the premise of this entire thread false and demand that people provide a defense against your attacks.. you flipped the script first. I'm correcting that mistake..

No, you aren't. You are what is called shifting the burden of proof. The observation that no credible evidence has been provided to establish a claim asserted is not an attack, nor is it itself a position.

I've done plenty enough research to UNDERSTAND what I'm dealing with.. and your attempts to rebuke me only revealed how little of my point you actually understood..

So then why are you constantly evading queries for evidence, shifting the goal post by just changing your claims to trivial ones when ever any sort of challenge comes up? If you know so much about this, why does none of that show in anything you actually put out? And if your interlocutors know so little, then how can they with such ease and so little effort build such a devastating case, that you cannot take it head on but weasel around it instead?

You, however, play as if you are a true objective observer, but you constantly reveal your bias against "woo". Even tried to use it as moral highground, and almost suggested that there is an excuse for suppression. THAT is not being objective.

If a bias towards evidence amounts to a bias against woo, that says more of the woo than of the objectivity of the bias. And no, I think that we can have a moral argument against things that actively do measurable harm to people in direct or subtle ways, and if you find that the well-being of people is a standard too subjective to agree with for the purposes of the moral discussion, then there is no discussion of that sort to be had any further, frankly. No, that's not objective, but by a standard like that, pretty much nothing is.

You have, very ungracefully, battled and bullied on the very edge of accepted policy here.. but still have yet to have a real victory against the premise of this thread.. you have attack the character of these ideas. Bringing people's character to question in the process.. but that's because, as you say, you have no real proof to refute the point.. and nobody on this "CONSPIRACY" thread has the obligation to defend against your accusations..

Yes, and noone has the obligation to stay out of the debate if they have nothing to agree with. Nobody has an obligation to shut up and let baseless claims slide. As Khaos pointed out earlier, if anything, there is a case to be made that the Jedi Code would encourage us to combat them. And, of course, nobody is obliged to take them seriously, much less if so little to substantiate them is presented.

The only defeat here is yours, if any. This isn't a competition for me. I'm only trying to spread truth and knowledge to others who are willing.. if you're such a researcher. Why don't you fact-check the videos I provided, kyrin?

Well, aren't you generous and noblet, providing for those who will take even without your giving - that is what you mean by willing, isn't it. They have to be susceptible first, gullible enough to take what you say without challenging it. It's no big secret that there are plenty of conspiracy theorists of varying dedication out there. It is no secret that the powers that be withhold information from us, for benign purposes and for evil ones. It's not difficult to find a video that makes all of your claims backing it up with all of the same evidence. Again this reeks of shifting the burden of proof. If you thought the videos were themselves evidence enough, you wouldn't suggest anyone fact-check them. But if your investigation showed them to be well-sourced and you still don't think they are themselves enough, why are we seeing the videos, rather than the actual sources you verified? Since you are insisting that there is more to them than the same mere assertions, why is it on anyone but you to fact-check?

Arisaig wrote: You see, the issue with debating conspiracy theories and conjecture about such with someone who wants to believe in them is that they will find proof, even if its not real proof, for their position.

Same reason for many faiths, or lack thereof. One trying to prove them wrong simply is viewed as ignorant or unwilling, or even worse, part of a greater cover-up conspiracy.

Best save your breath, either way. There is always better things to be doing than beating one's own forehead into a brick wall trying to convince it that it of anything.

It must have gone under in all of the rest of the thread as well as the myriad others where I have answered this, so here it goes again: Some of us actually care about more than just the spread of our own ideas, or the healthy reasoning and convictions of just the one most vocally disagreeing. Many people get to be voted for, and many, many more get to vote. What they believe matters, and what they put out there for the public to consider does, too. Few are deluding themselves about the chances of reasoning someone out of something they didn't arrive at through reason, but among those who have no strong opinions one way or the other, few, too, will find it in them to question an idea they hear no opposition to. If you care about more than just yourself and your opponent, then to "save your breath" is not best at all, but indeed one of the worst courses of action. This carelessness is why there are developed countries where the historicity of the Noachian Flood is a question some school boards still find debatable.

Gisteron wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: DEFINITION OF A CONSPIACY THEORY: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. These theories are without credible evidence. They consist of a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof." Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy, therefore the conspiracy theory claims are false by definition.

This is your first logical fallacy

No, Kyrin, this one is actually yours. A conspiracy theory is not by definition without credible evidence. Much like other theories, they are descriptions. Most are baseless, but some describe real events that do or did occur, and for a subset of those we actually have full documentation of the actual conspiracy asserted by the theory. Some conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable and as such warrant neither investigation nor consideration. Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structures of argument, leaving a gap between the premises and the conclusion. Informal fallacies are unproductive debate tactics like shifting the goal post, or the burden of proof. Unfalsifiability is not a logical fallacy of either kind. And if it was, that would be irrelevant, because an argument being fallacious does not make its conclusion false. To make that inference is actually itself a formal fallacy called argumentum ad logicam.

You are partially correct. While it is not listed as a formal fallacy it is an implied fallacy as it is used here. The reason for this is because the conclusion is arrived at first and then evidence is cherry picked and massaged to fit the conclusion to make it seem viable when it actuality it is not.

There is also a difference between actual conspiracy and conspiracy theory. The first may have basis in an actual conspiracy while the second is unfounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Fair enough. I was unaware that the part about "without credible evidence" is commonly understood to be part of the definition in English. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary and the Oxford English dictionary both do not make that qualifier. On Wikipedia, the German and Russian counterparts to the English article do not define it so either. Rather, just as I used the term, the distinction between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is that the latter alleges the former. A conspiracy is when people conspire, and a conspiracy theory is the theory that people conspire.
The second link you post does only once imply that claims can be fallacious. In the exception further down it mentions that not all unfalsifiable claims have to be. You said "Unfalsifiable claims are a logical fallacy,...", so it would seem you would disagree with the article. Speaking of the same article, in the first example it points out that a claim can be true despite being unfalsifiable, so when you coninued the statement requoted above with "..., therefore the conspiracy claims are false by definition." it would appear you disagree with it there also.
Finally, the last Wikipedia article you link, as well as the one on fallacies specifies that fallaciousness is a property of arguments, of reasoning, not of individual, irreducible claims. Scrolling further down, the very second entry in the list is the "Argument from fallacy", the very fallacy I was pointing out you were committing: Saying that something is false in virtue of the reasoning it was arrived at being faulty.
I think it serves your point poorly to cite sources that disagree with it...

Agreed. I post the articles in the interest of fairness in argument. The fact that some parts may not serve my point is the part where I may be wrong. And I think that is fair to say.

It's interesting that the german versions state different things as well. As for the unfalsifiable claim possibly being true I do agree with that and so my statement that unfalsifiable conspiracy theories are false by definition is an error because the possibility exists that it could be true even though it cant be proven either way. It is the same way faith works. One could use faith to arrive at either a true claim or a false claim and one could not tell the difference. That is why evidence is so important.

In this case what I should have said was conspiracy theories as presented here are a logical fallacy because has been no evidence that can show them to be true other that through the use of logical fallacy.

What prevents people from learning is not the subject, no matter how difficult it is (the human mind has limitless capabilities), but rather certain learning disabilities that tend to fester and grow in our minds as we get older. These include a sense of smugness and superiority whenever we encounter something alien to our ways, as well as rigid ideas about what is real or true, often indoctrinated in us by schooling or family. If we feel like we know something, our minds close off to other possibilities. We see reflections of the truth e have already assumed. Such feelings of superiority are often unconscious and stem from a fear of what is different or unknown. We are rarely aware of this, and often imagine ourselves to be paragons of impartiality.

--Robert Greene, Mastery

Just part of my studies for tonight. Felt it plays deeply into this thread. Guess you can say the Force drew me to post it. Make of it what you will.