I've been wondering about something. When contributors like Bronto, Amarel, xMathFanx and Marcusmoon proliferate their spectacular distortions of the truth, do they actually know they are lying? I wonder whether they know and don't care, or whether there is some kind of psychological problem at work? Are we just seeing the typical effects of ideological indoctrination, or are there other factors?I find it extremely unlikely that these people do not know they are lying, but at the same time I am no expert in mental illness.What say you?PS. FactMachine, if I see you in here I'm going to ban you instantly.
I wish I were making this up. I honestly do, but I'm not. I posted this official NASA statement in response to @MarcusMoon telling lies about climate change:-Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/@MarcusMoon then responded by posting an article co-written by an American economist and a businessman, neither of which have any scientific qualifications or experience, and neither of which have ever been employed by any scientific body which researches climate. When I challenged the sheer lunacy of this his response was to claim I am a science denier.Just wtf??? Why am I here even arguing with lunatics like this?Am I just as much of a lunatic for arguing with such utterly spectacular liars?
The Next Time You Hear Someone Argue That Mohammed Was A Paedophile
Please remind them that Jesus Christ encouraged parents to execute their own children.“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)“Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)
Even if we are lenient and give these useless 4th century throwbacks a pass on their complete lack of empathy and understanding, they still come out on the wrong side of stupid. Even if we stretch reality far enough to assume for just a moment that their raging anti-Islamic views contain a shred of credibility, who in their right mind wants a war against an army which boasts one and a half billion soldiers? That isn't a war you can win. That's a war which is going to get everybody killed. Why are Conservatives afflicted with this horrific brand of arrogant stupidity?
When you are engaged in written debate you should always use the simplest word available to you which explains your meaning. Nine out of ten times in online debates there is an inverse square relationship between the complexity of a person's language and their understanding of the subject they are writing about. I figure this is because some people like to bullshit, and hide their ignorance behind a wall of pseudo-language. Whatever the reason, it is the rule which is important. The next time you see a long wall of synonyms glued together by five year old grammar, just try applying my rule and dig a little deeper into the language. I am confident you will find, if you closely examine the content of contributors like Amarel, xMathFanx and Marcus Moon, that they talk a phenomenal amount of complete crap.In absolute fairness, you will also on occasion find me falling victim to the narcissism which provokes this kind of literary peacock display. I strongly encourage you to question my logic the next time you see it happen.Because the bottom line is this: your words are only tools with which to communicate your ideas. If your ideas are shit, then there is nothing words can do to help you. Not unless your actual goal is fooling other people, which is another matter entirely.Anyway, hope you enjoyed my little rant. Have a cold beverage on me. You've earned it.
Trump Sex Assault Victims Hold News Conference Demanding Investigation
A group of women who have publicly accused President Donald Trump of sexual harassment and assault detailed their accounts of being groped, fondled and forcibly kissed by the businessman-turned-politician at a news conference on Monday."This was serial misconduct and perversion on the part of Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, this behavior isn't rare in our society, and people of all backgrounds can be victims. The only reason I am here today is that this offender is now the President of our country," said Rachel Crooks, a former Bayrock Group receptionist who accused Trump of kissing her on the mouth without her consent in 2005.At least 13 women have come forward with accusations against Trump ranging from sexual harassment and misconduct to sexual assault, including unwanted kissing and groping. All the alleged incidents took place prior to his assuming the presidency.http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/donald-trump-women-allegations/index.html
Throughout the confusion of Donald Trump's campaign and the chaotic events of his early days in the White House, one controversy has clung to the Trump team like glue: Russia.US intelligence agencies have concluded Moscow tried to sway the presidential election in favour of Mr Trump.It is alleged that Russian hackers stole information linked to the campaign of his rival Hillary Clinton and passed it to Wikileaks so it could be released to undermine her.Congressional committees were set up to investigate the matter and, in March, then-FBI director James Comey confirmed the bureau had its own inquiry.President Trump sacked Mr Comey on 9 May, citing his reason as "this Russia thing", in a move that shocked Washington and fuelled claims of a cover-up.However, it did not halt the investigation. On 18 May, the department of justice appointed ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to look into the matter.Mr Mueller has not given any details of his investigation but US media have reported he is investigating Mr Trump for possible obstruction of justice, both in the firing of Mr Comey and whether Mr Trump tried to end an inquiry into sacked national security adviser Michael Flynn.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38966846?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2lgt/donald-trump&link_location=live-reporting-story
So I pray to a giant hairy beast God called Dave every night. And I know Dave is real because I've read about it in a book which was written by Dave himself and then defecated from his own bowels as a hallowed gift to mankind. You cannot question this belief because I have nothing to present as evidence in support of it, and hence you have nothing to scrutinise the authenticity of (pretty clever, huh?). Furthermore, all attacks against me are therefore moot because (insert smug line about faith here).
It appears to have become commonplace in America to use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" as a form of blanket attack against anybody or anything which scrutinises or questions the status quo in any regard. In other words, if you question what you are told by political authority, you are to be mocked with this disparaging phrase and compared to people who believe Elvis is still alive. Strangely -- or perhaps not so strangely, dependent upon how clever you are -- you are never compared to people who think Jesus is still alive, since the status quo tells us this belief is perfectly normal, sane and rational.In fact, let's just examine the sheer, wanton untenability of trying to shut down arguments with this disingenuous personal attack instead of a dialectic of reason. Are right wing Americans presumably under some kind of illusion that conspiracies do not happen in the real world? Because history is absolutely littered with them. In Britain, we celebrate the gunpowder conspiracy plot as a public holiday on November 5th. The implication that, "You believe there was a conspiracy, therefore you are to automatically be mocked" is, quite frankly, one of the most egregious aberrations of logic I have ever stumbled across in my entire natural life. Indeed, I refer to the late great George Carlin, who famously redirected the mockery where it actually belongs, when he said: "Wow! The idea that powerful people sometimes get together and actually make a plan!"There was a populist resurgence in utilisation of the "conspiracy theorist" rhetorical attack in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. Thenceforth, perhaps the real tragedy did not happen on 9/11, but rather in the subsequent months when dozens of academics were shut down for challenging the official version of events. Some of them were fired from their jobs; others quietly retired. Consider for example the fate of American physics professor Steven Jones, who was forced into early retirement by BYU, for publishing a paper entitled: "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?". Or consider Danish chemistry professor Niels Harrit, who has been the victim of smear attacks from the American right ever since publishing his 2009 study: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered In Dust From The 9/11 WTC Catastrophe." Dozens of scientists, architects, engineers and intellectuals have been attacked and shut down with this ignorant, cynical, pernicious smear that they are conspiracy theorists and hence everything they say is to be ignored and/or mocked. 9/11 was the day the American public demonstrated its dazzling gullibility to the rest of the world, and the sheer irony is that it was fooled by the "turn the truth upside down" rhetoric of the American right. The American public was quite simply convinced that the gullibility resided within those with the audacity to question what they were told. Everybody else became a patriotic American genius for pretending to understand the impossible physics and contradictory discourse of Shyam Sunder, head of the NIST "investigation". The government knew exactly what it was doing. It made a direct appeal to the egos of people trained from birth to be egotists, and those people fell for it.University research in Kent, England, suggests that contrary to the American version of reality, those who question the events of 9/11 are actually significantly more numerous than those who do not:-https://newsvoice.se/2013/07/15/nya-studier-konspirationsteoretiker-mer-sansade-an-mainstream-folk/