Who thinks this Post should be on the Conspiracy Thread..and Why?

Should the Post listed be on the Conspiracy board?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 40.0%

  • No

    Votes: 12 60.0%
  • Total voters
    20
USMC the Almighty said:
Jesus Christ, Roker. KOF clearly posted the video to support the position that 9/11 was an inside job (hence the title of the thread).

The definition of a conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". Saying that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government fits this definition. End of story.
Click to expand...



First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL
 
Werbung:
USMC the Almighty said:
Jesus Christ, Roker. KOF clearly posted the video to support the position that 9/11 was an inside job (hence the title of the thread).

The definition of a conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". Saying that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government fits this definition. End of story.
Click to expand...

You really are Mr. Goofy.
 
Rokerijdude11 said:
First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL
Click to expand...

Roker, I understand where you're coming from, feeling that the NYPD officer's recounting of the events concerning him, from his perspective, is not a conspiracy theory because it's just his account with no indication of being in conclusion with anyone else.

The problem is that no, he's not a part of a conspiracy theory, but his claims and observations, assessments and conclusions are part of the general "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" category. With his presentation he is implying and at points accusing others as perpetuating the days events in a diabolical manner, that two or more were conspiring to have those events unfold.

No one is saying that he's part of a conspiracy. What is true, though, is that he's presenting, or alluding to, the theory part of the phrase. The phrase is actually two components from both ends of the issue.

Believe me, I'm in no way blindly supporting the government, from Congress, to the President, to the Supreme Court. If any type of solid evidence ever emerges that there was any type of American (PERIOD!) manipulation on 9/11 events, I'll be the first to light a torch and storm Washington. (Or wherever the American involvement could stem from...)
 
KeepOurFreedoms said:
!!!!!
Click to expand...

I guess your reply was actually where you interjected the 'After this I don't need to read any more' type statement.

Please, if you've evidence I'm incorrect, please provide it. With what you've provided so far, you might as well just stick your tongue out and go "PFFFTTT!" Giving raspberries has about as much meaning as anything else you've said.
 
The point being it was fine where it was posted. It was wrongly moved to conspiracy section in my opinion. The problem with it being in the conspiracy section is the automatic stigma thats attached due to the "Conspiracy" relation

I find his related illness far more interesting than his candid conspiracy statements i feel there is some importance in the video,and by moving it to conspiracy section many people will never give it a look due to the "Conspiracy" Stigma
 
Rokerijdude11 said:
"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.


we have one man .....re-canting his experience on that day
this does not imply collusion...it dos not fit the defenition of a conspiracy
Click to expand...

Roker replies;
freedom of speech is exactly that the "Freedom" to say Whatever.....you desire with "No Restrictions" ......anything,anything other than that is what can only be known as......... "Limited Freedom Of speech"............period.

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"

You can interpret it how you want, I guess.

"Congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Irresponsible, harmful and slanderous speech has never been covered by this. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck vs U.S.: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” It was an oversimplification to some. It isn't the act of shouting "Fire" or even causing a panic. It is because the patrons of a theater enter it with an understanding that this is something that would be unacceptable to the owner, and that they have a reasonable expectation of not being disturbed by other patrons.

The owner also has a right to establish a different environment. A good example of this would be the rowdy, bawdy, even crude environment when a theater is showing "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." If someone goes into a theater showing that, plunking their bucks down and expecting to sit peacefully and watch a movie, they're sadly mistaken. Yet none of the rowdy patrons are violating their rights. Their expectations were unrealistic. Freedom of speech is actually grounded in private-property rights.

I don't have a problem with expecting responsibility to be exercised within the right. I don't have a problem with not allowing libel or slanderous speech or communication. I don't have a problem with limiting publication and distribution and criminalizing child pornography.

I also don't have a problem with a 9/11 victim to air their observations and views. And I don't have a problem with your right to argue the opposing positions. But I do have a problem with distortion of the facts, intentional or not.

If I need to be corrected, please feel free to do so. But please, even if you can't be civil about it, please have the decency to at least be factual.
 
TruthAboveAll said:
I guess your reply was actually where you interjected the 'After this I don't need to read any more' type statement.

Please, if you've evidence I'm incorrect, please provide it. With what you've provided so far, you might as well just stick your tongue out and go "PFFFTTT!" Giving raspberries has about as much meaning as anything else you've said.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

!!!!! was posted because at least 5 digits/numbers/letters are required per post after a quote.
 
TruthAboveAll said:
Roker replies;
freedom of speech is exactly that the "Freedom" to say Whatever.....you desire with "No Restrictions" ......anything,anything other than that is what can only be known as......... "Limited Freedom Of speech"............period.

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"

You can interpret it how you want, I guess.

"Congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Irresponsible, harmful and slanderous speech has never been covered by this. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck vs U.S.: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” It was an oversimplification to some. It isn't the act of shouting "Fire" or even causing a panic. It is because the patrons of a theater enter it with an understanding that this is something that would be unacceptable to the owner, and that they have a reasonable expectation of not being disturbed by other patrons.

The owner also has a right to establish a different environment. A good example of this would be the rowdy, bawdy, even crude environment when a theater is showing "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." If someone goes into a theater showing that, plunking their bucks down and expecting to sit peacefully and watch a movie, they're sadly mistaken. Yet none of the rowdy patrons are violating their rights. Their expectations were unrealistic. Freedom of speech is actually grounded in private-property rights.

I don't have a problem with expecting responsibility to be exercised within the right. I don't have a problem with not allowing libel or slanderous speech or communication. I don't have a problem with limiting publication and distribution and criminalizing child pornography.

I also don't have a problem with a 9/11 victim to air their observations and views. And I don't have a problem with your right to argue the opposing positions. But I do have a problem with distortion of the facts, intentional or not.

If I need to be corrected, please feel free to do so. But please, even if you can't be civil about it, please have the decency to at least be factual.
Click to expand...

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"
 
Werbung:

Similar threads

AlicornsPrayer
Thread Issues
Replies
3
Views
2K
AlicornsPrayer
AlicornsPrayer
Dr.Who
  • Poll
Profit, wealth, and corporations
Replies
2
Views
849
Dr.Who
Dr.Who
Coyote
Abominations
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mare Tranquillity
Mare Tranquillity
M
401K Rules
Replies
0
Views
1K
Marlinark
M
ArmChair General
How many Points do you have?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Justinian
J
Back
Top