First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Double standards regarding evidence
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16
What a small world you live in....

This came from the same people who believed this woman was genuine.
152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16
jesus fucking christ i have no words for you that wouldn't get me banned, Lala.

I'd just recommend reading this
http://archive.adl.org/holocaust/response.html
and just reading through the entirety of this
https://www.ushmm.org/
https://www.hdot.org/
if you're lazy, just skip to this
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html

But besides that point, just because people are skeptical of your conspiracy theory (read: bullshit) doesn't mean that you get to peddle antisemitic talking points (read: BULLSHIT) , Lala.

17161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16
Why does this girl talk in 3rd person.
11762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

runec wrote:


LalaSatalin wrote:
*As this is a very sensitive topic, Lala received permission from a mod to keep this thread up as long as Lala speaks with respect, so please don't try to derail this thread even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.*


Seriously mods? What the actual fuck?


Gonna have to second that. I mean at least she isn't namedropping politicians and businesses who could be ruined though innocent if enough people believe her shit, but that doesn't change the fact that this whole thing is fucked.
30158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16
Just to point something out. It's impossible to prove a UNIVERSAL negative. Even though the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim it's absolutely possible to prove a non-universal negative. For example someone is accused of murder at a certain time and a certain place. The burden of proof lies on the accusers to prove that the person committed murder at that time and at that place, but the person being accused can also present an alibi proving that he could not have possibly killed anyone at that time and at that place. He can prove the negative, that he did not kill that person at that time and at that place, by proving another positive that disproves the first positive, that he had an alibi and couldn't have been at that place at that time.

In regard to witness testimonies you are correct that sometimes they can be wrong, but if we can no longer rely on a testimony because it can potentially be wrong then we lost the ability to understand history itself. Everything we know of history is due to the witness of someone else. How do we know that America was founded because they revolted against the British due to the lack of representation, won a war against them, and created their own government. There's either 2 possibilities, you either saw it yourself, or you heard about it from someone else.

Rather, a testimony must be treated like any other piece of evidence and tested whether it is true or not and weighed against the rest of the evidence to see where it fits in or if it can't fit in at all because it is false. Likewise the amount of evidence supporting something then becomes the measure how how sure an event happened.

Even if some evidence is later found to be false it does not disprove the event if the rest is still true, but rather just goes to show that we do not understand the exact details of the event. If they change their death estimates for the Holocaust it doesn't necessarily mean that the Holocaust fake, but rather it can also mean that we do not have enough evidence to know the exact number of deaths.

That's the sad truth though, we only have a distorted view of the past based on the evidence we have found. It is impossible to know every detail of the past because there is not strong enough evidence to know every detail, but we do the best with the evidence we have found to make the picture as best we can.

A good example of a distorted view of the past is actually 9/11.

The government said that Osama Bin Laden did it and that he was in Afghanistan and that we must go and attack Afghanistan.

...But they hid some information.

Because they hid some information a group of people along side some circumstantial evidence viewed incorrectly automatically assumed the exact opposite. That because the government was hiding something that they were the ones to do it.

But with more information revealed the truth was actually neither and more in between. The government was hiding something, but it wasn't the that they did it, but rather that Saudi Arabia was likely involved in helping the terrorists. Information that had the American public known at the time of the 9/11 attack may have influenced how we would have responded.

Likewise, just because information is hidden doesn't mean that the exact opposite conclusion is true, and adding more information won't always change the initial story, but may add some important information to it.

One thing I'll say though. Just because something ISN'T proven to be true I don't think we should discourage people's attempt to investigate something. I absolutely respect all the pizzagate internet sleuths, because even in the end if after all investigation is done if it's found to be ultimately nothing I would much rather than then the opposite where there was the possibility of a conspiracy pedophile ring but no one looked into it because the idea was crazy. Believe it or not even crazier ideas have been challenged and have been proven wrong in the past before like that the earth is flat. After all that's essentially what science is, the discipline of trying to disprove everything that is believed to be true. (If only that's how science worked today instead of hide all the evidence that disagrees with what we believe to be true...)
24082 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16
I wouldn't say the mods made the wrong decision. If you guys want to engage in a debate with Lala, that is your prerogative. However, I believe consistent bumping of a topic no one wants to talk about should not be allowed, but that is just me.

PV thinks Lala's belief come from a real place, and that this is not a simple shit post, but rather something decidedly built with more dedication and carefulness than Deyre's threads, or even mine.
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Xxanthar has a point about the holocaust. Elie Wiesel didn't write Night for nothing.


And all the other fake holocaust survivors that did interviews and wrote memoirs only to admit they were lying and 'it was real in their minds' decades later?

People make up shit to gain victimhood status, and its not exclusive to the holocaust.


octorockandroll wrote:



Gonna have to second that. I mean at least she isn't namedropping politicians and businesses who could be ruined though innocent if enough people believe her shit,.


So its fine that fake news media like CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox etc use shady anonymous sources to slander people they don't like, or for them to outright lie about certain events, causing certain people to get riled up and burn buildings and loot, shoot cops etc

But you're worried about someone on an anime forum potentially 'getting people to believe their shit'?
mxdan 
11202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16

LalaSatalin wrote:

*As this is a very sensitive topic, Lala received permission from a mod to keep this thread up as long as Lala speaks with respect, so please don't try to derail this thread even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.*


By your metric, LaLa, we should discredit most of history as the vast majority of it is circumstantial. I think, when it comes down to it, you should always take the most endearing and credited piece of evidence and hold it to near fact until it can be discredited. Not hold everything to disbelief because the evidence isn't flawless. At least when we talk about history. Law is a whole different thing.

In the spoiler below is Michael Shermer's article on pattern finding. You brought it up before but there are false positives in your argument (in my opinion). You're seeing a lot of patterns in your data but you're attributing it to preconceived notions. This is a false line of reasoning. True analytics starts without preconceived notions. IE, i found a lot pieces of weird data in something I'm familiar with so I'm going to follow it to a conclusion. It doesn't start with, "a lot of people think there is a pedophilia ring in this area so I'm going to see if I can confirm it myself and follow the patterns." Your already tricking your brain into a false set of belief when you do that. Making connections to things you otherwise wouldn't of.

Your brain, and others of course, is very good at filling in patterns where they don't exist as illustrated below. It's a survival mechanism.




descloud wrote:

Why does this girl talk in 3rd person.


Was wondering this for the last two days myself xD. It's kind of cute though!



Posted 12/19/16

SupersunZeratul wrote:

Just to point something out. It's impossible to prove a UNIVERSAL negative. Even though the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim it's absolutely possible to prove a non-universal negative. For example someone is accused of murder at a certain time and a certain place. The burden of proof lies on the accusers to prove that the person committed murder at that time and at that place, but the person being accused can also present an alibi proving that he could not have possibly killed anyone at that time and at that place. He can prove the negative, that he did not kill that person at that time and at that place, by proving another positive that disproves the first positive, that he had an alibi and couldn't have been at that place at that time.

In regard to witness testimonies you are correct that sometimes they can be wrong, but if we can no longer rely on a testimony because it can potentially be wrong then we lost the ability to understand history itself. Everything we know of history is due to the witness of someone else. How do we know that America was founded because they revolted against the British due to the lack of representation, won a war against them, and created their own government. There's either 2 possibilities, you either saw it yourself, or you heard about it from someone else.

Rather, a testimony must be treated like any other piece of evidence and tested whether it is true or not and weighed against the rest of the evidence to see where it fits in or if it can't fit in at all because it is false. Likewise the amount of evidence supporting something then becomes the measure how how sure an event happened.

Even if some evidence is later found to be false it does not disprove the event if the rest is still true, but rather just goes to show that we do not understand the exact details of the event. If they change their death estimates for the Holocaust it doesn't necessarily mean that the Holocaust fake, but rather it can also mean that we do not have enough evidence to know the exact number of deaths.

That's the sad truth though, we only have a distorted view of the past based on the evidence we have found. It is impossible to know every detail of the past because there is not strong enough evidence to know every detail, but we do the best with the evidence we have found to make the picture as best we can.

A good example of a distorted view of the past is actually 9/11.

The government said that Osama Bin Laden did it and that he was in Afghanistan and that we must go and attack Afghanistan.

...But they hid some information.

Because they hid some information a group of people along side some circumstantial evidence viewed incorrectly automatically assumed the exact opposite. That because the government was hiding something that they were the ones to do it.

But with more information revealed the truth was actually neither and more in between. The government was hiding something, but it wasn't the that they did it, but rather that Saudi Arabia was likely involved in helping the terrorists. Information that had the American public known at the time of the 9/11 attack may have influenced how we would have responded.

Likewise, just because information is hidden doesn't mean that the exact opposite conclusion is true, and adding more information won't always change the initial story, but may add some important information to it.

One thing I'll say though. Just because something ISN'T proven to be true I don't think we should discourage people's attempt to investigate something. I absolutely respect all the pizzagate internet sleuths, because even in the end if after all investigation is done if it's found to be ultimately nothing I would much rather than then the opposite where there was the possibility of a conspiracy pedophile ring but no one looked into it because the idea was crazy. Believe it or not even crazier ideas have been challenged and have been proven wrong in the past before like that the earth is flat. After all that's essentially what science is, the discipline of trying to disprove everything that is believed to be true. (If only that's how science worked today instead of hide all the evidence that disagrees with what we believe to be true...)


Excellent post, except for your absolution of the perpetrators of 911...Only 4 people can order Norad around, and those with that authority on that day are guilty and complicit in the matter. The phone calls would have crossed cel towers faster than they could have handshook. Cel also didnt work at 35,000 feet. The Pentagon turn would likely have ripped the wings off a real plane that tried that, not a single professional pilot was able to make that maneuver on the world's gold standard flight simulator. That's before we even get to the impossible physics of the buildings. Way too much manufactured garbage, I still just shake my head that people can actually believe such a tall tale.

That's the thing, we talk about proof this and that, but the moment one says that a known accurate mathematical model should be ignored because history reports ~8 to ~20 times what the model says is doable, well then...I dont know what to say of that. Were some folks genocided? Yup. Was that number inflated? All evidence of that certain class of folks indicates that it was inflated, but its difficult to tell by how much.

Often when the mathematical model is pointed out, the other side of that debate changes its tune slightly, and afterward assert that it really doesnt matter how it happened, the end result is the end result, their questionable statement from earlier well swept under the rug.

So this is really all about people making factual observations that go against the narrative that is set in front of everyone to discuss, and then some other people crabbing about people not going along with the narrative that's put forth.

But how can one go along with that narrative when its swiss cheese full of holes.

Reminds me of this girl I knew, her brother had terrible vision, but only got glasses like early teenage years or something, after getting them, they were driving and he goes "holy cow!!! there's cracks in the roads!!!!"

Yes indeed, there sure are.
Posted 12/19/16
After some fact checking and investigative work, I am now convinced that Lizard People http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496/
Are responsible for both Pizzagate and the Holocaust.

Keep in mind that they say lizard people can shape shift at will.
runec 
36265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

octorockandroll wrote:
Gonna have to second that. I mean at least she isn't namedropping politicians and businesses who could be ruined though innocent if enough people believe her shit, but that doesn't change the fact that this whole thing is fucked.


Fucked and legitimately dangerous given there's been one gunman already as a result of this bullshit. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever this should be on the forums. There's no legitimate discussion to be had here. So why the hell is it being allowed yet again? Are we just officially /pol/ now or what?

Posted 12/19/16

runec wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
Gonna have to second that. I mean at least she isn't namedropping politicians and businesses who could be ruined though innocent if enough people believe her shit, but that doesn't change the fact that this whole thing is fucked.


Fucked and legitimately dangerous given there's been one gunman already as a result of this bullshit. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever this should be on the forums. There's no legitimate discussion to be had here. So why the hell is it being allowed yet again? Are we just officially /pol/ now or what?



Hah, that aspiring actor? (Yes, fact.)

Lol no legitimate discussion to be had here. The populace should collectively tar and feather every last one of them involved in this, its some of the most heinous crap ever, it was already swept under the rug when discovered back in the 80s with the franklin case...

I really dont know why people like you put yourself in the position of defending pedophiles.
runec 
36265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

choppin_broccoli wrote:
Hah, that aspiring actor? (Yes, fact.)

Lol no legitimate discussion to be had here. The populace should collectively tar and feather every last one of them involved in this, its some of the most heinous crap ever, it was already swept under the rug when discovered back in the 80s with the franklin case...

I really dont know why people like you put yourself in the position of defending pedophiles.


I don't know why people like you put yourself in the position of defending delusions. =p
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.