Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
@User99: opinion mercenary? LOL.. I like that. Look at it like this... I work at a book store where giggly little idiots come to buy those Meyers books about sparkling Vampires.
Personally, I think that the author is a fanfiction slut run wild, that she shouldn't be allowed to write anything, that her characters are an insult to anyone that reads her vile spewing crap and that she's got serious emotional problems that she projects onto her characters.
But you'll never hear me say any of that at work.
Like i said just make it up like everyone else on this site.
There you go believing again. Just except it opinions are beliefs your whole life is based on beliefs. Just like we don't
experience the world we experience our senses.
And i get plenty of arguments i think even more being an RE on an FE site. Wouldn't you get more being and FE on the RE site. Or you need some one there to reassure you because you might cry if your left to defend Fe all on your own.
Heh, I was right, we could make a new argument based on this.
So if you ever did prove there was a Conspiracy and the Earth was flat, you would then flip to the other side and say the Earth was round and there was a Conspiracy to prevent that as well? If critical thought is about expanding your mind and moving forward, it doesn't work so well if you decide that anything that actually gets proven should be disproven because... it got... prov...
And here come the headaches.
I suppose my basic question here is; if you yourself 'believe' in nothing, then do you solely choose the side you will support if it is the minority, or considered to be disproven? If you only choose to do so, even when the issue has been debated to the point of futility, then what are you stretching your mind towards? What good is an expanded consciousness if you solely base your conclusions on the fact that they are not the conclusions the majority hold?
I mean, if you do that, you're not letting the greater number of people decide your stance, which is good, but then you're letting the smaller number of people decide your stance, which is decidedly less positive.
Wouldn't you technically be believing that the subject is unimportant compared to the exercise? o.O
...such as proving something you yourself don't believe in? Isn't that a little counter-productive? If everyone decides that anyone can prove the local mayor is stealing while he's in office, and nobody actually does it because they consider it beneath them, the mayor would be the only one that benefited.
To each their own, I suppose. I imagine we could start off a new debate on this subject.
Can anyone find a source on this that give more in depth description about why they chose to do an abortion. I couldn't find anything with Google that gave any in depth info. However the fact it said that the pregnancy itself could be dangerous to her says a little about it.
...and the people who thought the world would end probably didn't believe it was flat. If they were told about the theories here, in an attempt to discourage them from their theory, there's a pretty good chance they would say precisely the same thing. That they were too pragmatic to believe in such things. And please join their group before God destroyed the planet.
They're wrong, obviously, because the world didn't end. But your theory about the Conspiracy seems to designed to avoid ever being proven wrong, because the Conspiracy would keep you from ever trying to take a look at it, from testing your theory in a manner that didn't involve jet streams.
I know at least one of Rowbotham's experiments, the Bedford Level experiment, have been conducted by differant groups. Of those groups, one said it proved the Earth was round, and another said it proved the Earth was concave.
I can. Kill the entire village and the local church.
Abortion may be wrong, but murder is still ok,,, right?
Aye, but wouldn't every seperate theory bring with it its own separate weaknesses? I mean, if the governments are not involved, then it raises the issue of how a supposedly subordinate organization could get around them so effectively. If the governments are involved, then it raises the question as how they can so smoothly trick the population, the other countries, and even their own inner departments, (including budgetary sections,) along with the question of the use of official government resources.
The problem that seems to arise is that any and all arguments against the Conspiracy are counter-acted with something chosen from one of the multiple separate hypothesis, and any additional arguments raised against that particular hypothesis is countered with a piece from another hypothesis, and so on and so forth. Be like fighting a multi-headed Hydra; every time you try and focus your attention on one of them, another one tries to take a bite at you.
I noticed you thought the idea of the Flat Earth data being falsified was just funny when it was brought up in one of the other threads. At least, I assume you did, given the sarcastic comment. Is there any specific reason?
The parents took her to the hospital because she was in pain. At 15 weeks a normal pregnancy should not be causing pain. You assume these doctors acted in haste, while ignoring the fact that Brazil has some of the strictest abortion laws in the world. The doctors had to be certain the girl's life was in danger before performing the abortion, or they would have faced criminal charges. Would you rather they wait until the girl is in imminent danger before doing the abortion? Jesus, where's the compassion for a little girl who has been raped repeatedly? She should be allowed to get over this and get on with her life as quickly and painlessly as possible.
And wtf? I can't believe you'd rather she carried the twins until they were barely viable, just to avoid an abortion. Premature babies have a lot of problems anyway, I can only imagine what kinds of problems these twins would have been "born" with coming from an 80lb child. Do we need more retards in the world?
Don't forget you tin hat, you don't want them reading your thoughts.
I guess the space pen is a perfect example of where the money goes. Im not even sure what this thread is trying to show. Is there a link between poor management and a conspiracy?
From a few short posts you seem to enjoy Japanese culture Ravenwood. Am I right?
(Kitsune, Yamamoto...)
I would like to see the evidence that someone who is 80 pound could have twins at 24 weeks with minimum danger to her. you suggest the doctors acted in haste. How long should they have spent on it. Just because they did not spend along time on it does not mean the answer was made in haste.
incompetant management is not evidence of conspiracy. it may be a cunning ruse, but like so much else in a flat earthers brain, you just don't know.
Incompetent management is circumstantial evidence
Whaaa?! It's not even circumstantial evidence.
A NASA employee being seen driving away from his place of work on his last day of employment, shouting "woo woo im rich im rich" whilst dollar bills drift out of his partially closed boot.
That would be circumstantial.
Incompetent management is evidence of incompetent management.
Keep fishing noob. You'll catch that big ol' catfish one day.
I actually think the conspiracy started as soon as the US and Soviet Union nabbed as many Nazi rocket scientists that they could following the second world war and learned the truth from them.
I don't think abortion is the first answer you need to be looking at any time something like this happens.
Watch out Raven, Wendy are Raist are going to yell at you, and call you names.
Sigh. Did you look at the other sentence, by any chance? I am a FE'er because 10,000 people come here to defend the RE and I can get more debates in being a FE'er.
So you believe in argument for arguments sake? I've seen some of your posts doing more than just that. I've seen you discussing the processes of FET. You really want to argue just to argue? Then why don't you just make up the rules as you go, like everyone else here?Belief closes the eyes and the mind.
Nice i might make this my sig.
Don't forget were this is. Brazil. How good are there hospitals? The Doctors probably did save her life. Yes there is a chance she could survive but if it is one in a thousand I think you can say they saved her life.How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins? How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die. None of that is relevant to this situation. There are full grown women who die from giving birth.
There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion. Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion. They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two.
@ Raist: The danger that the doctors talked about was for carrying to term... she doesn't have to carry to term. They could have taken the babies at 26 weeks, saving both the mother and the children.
As for the man... The priest is correct. God made no laws about what he did, not that he could be excommed for.
Another thing I don't agree with, but I, who am not of their faith, cannot tell them how to run their business.
And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it. If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.
I doubt they thought the catholic church would demonize them for it. Also would you please give us the survival rate of 9 year old girls who give birth? Then could you give us the rate of survival with twins? Just because it has happened does not mean it is likely or even plausible.
They saved the little girls life, the fact that the church interpreted the rules in such an unjust and draconian manner is shocking. The catholic church usually does allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the mother, and also I believe in cases of incest. The fact the vatican agreed with the cardinal is more political than dogma based and is a sign that the religion is not flawed but those that enforce it are not concerned about obeying it.
Raist, to say outright that they saved her life is as foolish as excomming them in the first place.
They gave an opinion that she could not survive to term. Since C-section is the most common way to deal with a small frame, carrying to term is not going to happen. And since technology can remove the baby as young as 22 weeks, they cannot make a valid argument that they had to do it, not that is valid for the Catholic Church.
That is why they were excommed... because they didn't even try to consider any other options before killing two beings.
I'm not saying I agree with either side in this case... but you cannot make blanket statements about either side either.
Except that they're all human.
How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins? How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die. None of that is relevant to this situation. There are full grown women who die from giving birth.
There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion. Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion. They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two.
And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it. If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.
I doubt they thought the catholic church would demonize them for it. Also would you please give us the survival rate of 9 year old girls who give birth? Then could you give us the rate of survival with twins? Just because it has happened does not mean it is likely or even plausible.
They saved the little girls life, the fact that the church interpreted the rules in such an unjust and draconian manner is shocking. The catholic church usually does allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the mother, and also I believe in cases of incest. The fact the vatican agreed with the cardinal is more political than dogma based and is a sign that the religion is not flawed but those that enforce it are not concerned about obeying it.
If I were an established country, with a new administration, I would fulfill the time honored tradition, a political move developed ever since the first caveman stood on a prehistoric soap box.
Blame the other guys.
Sure, the rest of the countries would be in a storm of shite unlike any other, but people typically have fairly short attention spans. Sure, there would be grumbling and the prior administrations would be villified. But, in the end, the current administration of the country that talks would be seen as those dedicated to Truth and Justice, who shone the Light of Revelation, etc, etc, etc... they might still be in a bit of trouble, but it'd still be less than they would find themselves in if they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
The Conspiracy's other members would be a little busy with the aforementioned shitstorm, and limited in terms of retaliation... with them occupied, the country that caves in will have free access to any and all benefits this new flood of knowledge would bring.
There's a sociology concept called Prisoner's Dilemna; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Sure, everyone benefits to some extent if everyone keeps quiet, but sooner or later someone (or a mini-conspiracy of someones,) will decide they can benefit more by taking their own path. Maybe they'll be right, maybe they'll be wrong, but since when has greed been limited by common sense?
This assumes that the Admin knows about it. Currently, the model has a few people in NASA running the conspiracy in this country while a few more in each of the space agencies of the space flight viable countries run their agency.
There are a few others involved, that have to be involved, but it is not the entire government of any nation.
Call it 300 greedy bastards who don't want their personal money train to stop until they're ready to retire.
How old do you think the conspiracy is?
If I were an established country, with a new administration, I would fulfill the time honored tradition, a political move developed ever since the first caveman stood on a prehistoric soap box.
Blame the other guys.
Sure, the rest of the countries would be in a storm of shite unlike any other, but people typically have fairly short attention spans. Sure, there would be grumbling and the prior administrations would be villified. But, in the end, the current administration of the country that talks would be seen as those dedicated to Truth and Justice, who shone the Light of Revelation, etc, etc, etc... they might still be in a bit of trouble, but it'd still be less than they would find themselves in if they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
The Conspiracy's other members would be a little busy with the aforementioned shitstorm, and limited in terms of retaliation... with them occupied, the country that caves in will have free access to any and all benefits this new flood of knowledge would bring.
There's a sociology concept called Prisoner's Dilemna; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Sure, everyone benefits to some extent if everyone keeps quiet, but sooner or later someone (or a mini-conspiracy of someones,) will decide they can benefit more by taking their own path. Maybe they'll be right, maybe they'll be wrong, but since when has greed been limited by common sense?
Greek Mythology.agreed
Greek Mythology is interesting....but I don't know....Egyptian is cool in the ceremonies and the rituals that went on, but I love the many different gods with Greek.
So, the space program has budget problems. Truly a rare occurance in government.
I live in Canada, and recently forty billion dollars in value has been lost from the Quebec Pension Fund. There is to be no probe or investigation carried out to confirm the cause of it, which has been described as a poor return in revenue. So, as far as the government is concerned, their excuse is genuine.
The Conspiracy really, really wouldn't need the Space Program to make money. Maybe once upon a time, it was viable, with the space race and all the resulting funding, but nowadays, it's just a liability. Dangerous; as bad as it would be for people to be told that everything with a lie, it would much worse if they found out for themselves. As things stand, the government could still profit from telling the truth, and setting up an appropriate scapegoat; they sound more than organized enough to pull it off. Maintaining the deception until its bitter end will just ensure they get hunted down to the four (ahem) corners of the Earth, and the risk has pitifully little return compared to good ol' political corruption.
Anyway, I'll seek out the thread, although if it's been going for awhile and is full of posts I won't be joining the debate for awhile; I wouldn't want to repeat what's been stated, so I'll probably read through all the posts first.
First of all, I thought temporary space travel was possible. You know, rocket up, rocket down. Says so in the FAQ, anyway.
Your Conspiracy doesn't seem to keep in mind that the space program doesn't have anywhere near the funding it once did; if it's all about the bottom line, be it for personal gain or just to build those shelters, then theoretically it would be more profitable for all to just tell the truth and accept the flood of contributions from companies salivating at the thought of what they might wring out of such things as cold light and dark energy. Considering new administrations blame previous administrations for everything that goes wrong, without fail, it wouldn't be too difficult for a new administration to also seek a bit of a publicity boost by being the first ones to reveal the long-hidden truth about the Universe. I'm not speaking of a single individual, but rather one of the governments involved in the Conspiracy, like the U.S. To be terribly honest, very few people think we have a hope in hell of colonizing the moon, let alone another planet, at the rate of population growth; this would not be a new concept for anyone.
But let's assume they want to keep it a secret, for whatever reason. Even if they want funds to build shelters, if they're so powerful, (and apparently so good at covering a paper trail,) why bother with a space program at all? Especially since this program apparently balances on a lie that could theoretically be exposed at any moment; no organization, no matter how powerful, can be one hundred percent certain that they won't be found out. In fact, the bigger they are, (and your suggestion is that this is one of the largest ever assembled,) the harder they would be to hide, in every sense of the word.
They could just take the money and then blame a government scandal if they don't cover their tracks, which also happens all the time. Politicians are just replaced with more members of the Conspiracy, and life goes on until the next scandal. Adding multiple space agencies, numerous personnel and equipment... it's sloppy.
Furthermore, 'we can assume the deal was cut' seems to be a bit of a shortcut, given the unspoken reason for your argument would be 'we can assume the deal was cut because the Earth is flat.' When you have to use your theory to prove the hypothesis you're using to prove your theory...