|
>All three.
>
>>I would guess that conspiracy theories of this type usually
>>come from insecurities, fear and anger, and are simply
>allowed
>>to develop further when there is a lack of evidence to the
>>contrary.
>
>Or, they could arise when rational people are curious, seek
>evidence
>about a widely agreed upon event and don't find it.
Rational people generally follow Occam's razor, and don't jump to unjustified conclusions, particularly when there are no serious flaws in the standard story, as is the case with the Pentagon crash.
>Sort of like how most US-backed coups are written off as
>"conspiracies,"
By whom? By me?
>only to be confirmed later. Usually this takes several years.
>In the case of
>Venenzuela and Haiti, rapid information exchange facilitated
>faster
>exposition.
>
>In the past, with terrorist plots like Operation Mongoose in
>Cuba, the news
>barely broke at all.
Now who's condescending?
>Lying and deception has already occured in regards to 9/11,
>and people
>less radical than 3X have said so.
I still can't get over the fact that you can't distinguish a nut from a radical.
>Of course, when people white-er than 3X
>or Aquaman suggest it, you listen.
Like whom? Did you see the Charlie Sheen thread? Did you see what I had to say about that chickenshit cracker at BYU who somehow got a physics professorship without knowing a damn bit of physics, and then aided these nuts in their delusions that science supports their claims?
>That is the central problem here. You **think** you are hipper
>than
>your more conservative white brethren.
>
>You're actually not.
I'm too old to care who's hipper than whom. I do think I'm smarter than most conservatives, and I'm getting more convinced with each post that I'm much smarter than you are.
>>I'm not "relegating" anything. "Preacher" is not an insult.
>
>>He was a damn good preacher, and he obviously did a hell of
>a
>>lot of good for his followers and for mankind in general.
>But
>>he was motivated by faith, not by reason. And that wasn't
>an
>>insult, or a relegation, either.
>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Very hip resonse...
>You fucking imbecile.
...followed by a smart one.
>You deserve to choke on some food for about 15 seconds for
>that one. Not die, but you are certainly deserving of some
>thorough
>discomfort.
>
>You are dead fucking wrong for two reasons:
>
>a) To suggest that pre-Hajj Malcom was motivated by faith, and
>not reason,
>is well...retarded. Most of Malcom's most famous speaches, a
>large proportion
>of his writing, including the "home to roost" comment were
>all pre-Hajj.
>Despite his NOI affiliation, Malcom was always insightful, and
>erudite.
And where did I say otherwise?
>You are falling victim for the mistake of heaping all of
>Malcom's relevance
>to post-Hajj. Never been the case.
>
>b)To suggest that post-Hajj Malcom was motivated by more
>reason than faith
>is both ironic, and wrong, because it was actually a SPIRITUAL
>transformation that
>DROVE his politics post-Hajj, hence our use of "post-Hajj" and
>"pre-Hajj" to
>describe the two sides of Malcom -- Hajj, of course, describes
>the holy pilgrimage
>which fortified his Orthodox Islamic views. He was actually
>far more spiritual and
>driven by faith AFTER the Hajj.
Do you actually think I don't know what the Hajj is?! And you had the nerve to call me condescending.
Anyway, you're way off on a tangent. Find me a major unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Malcolm spread, pre- or post-Hajj, that can't be directly attributed to standard religious practice or theology.
>So in the end:
>
>a)You're wrong for factual reasons
Only to the extent you continue to misunderstand the facts.
>b)You're wrong because your faith/reason dichtomy is a
> false construction.
That's a question of philosophy and of semantics. I'll let it pass for now.
>c)You're wrong even if your reason/faith dichotomy is valid,
>because
>you are attributing "faith" and "reason" to the wrong "halves"
>of the
>Malcom X experience.
The Malcolm X experience? Did they ever share a bill with the Jimi Hendrix Experience?
>Overall, you're jus wrong, an imbecile, and...a piece of shit.
Don't forget hip!
>>Yes, but they are religious tenets, and I wouldn't want to
>>insult them with the phrase "conspiracy theory." Christians
>>believe Jesus rose from the dead, also without evidence, and
>>even if it's bullshit it isn't a conspiracy theory. It's
>>something that's admittedly taken on pure faith. Conspiracy
>>theorists claim to have rational justification for their
>>stories.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I'm starting to think I'm hipper than you are, too. That's pretty sad, considering the white conservatives are hipper than I am.
>Dickhead,
>
>You are creating bad argument after bad argument after
>bad argument.
>
>The pushers of bad ideas of all types claim to have evidence.
People claim all sorts of things.
>The pushers of intelligent design, very spiritually driven,
>believe
>that the universe is loaded with "Evidence" that the world
>was
>created by a creator.
Despite what their claims are, they are simply and clearly wrong. The points that they hold up as "evidence" fail any standard definition of the term.
>This is, of course, why the Shroud of Turin is such an issue.
>
>
>This is, of course, why people read the Holy Books.
>
>But in the end, you're simply trying
>to manufacture a way to justify criticizing 3X more than
>you do anyone else.
I don't need to manufacture any reason for the fact that I criticize 3X more than anybody else. The reason is clear: it's entertaining, and it's easy. This is not because he's "militant" (and he's not), it's because he's so completely careless and predictable.
>The truth is, NOI cats used to rationalize the "white man =
>Devil" talk
>by pointing to history, and the destruction of civilizations,
>enslavement,
>torture, and killing, that accompanied white presence in said
>lands.
"Rationalizing" an irrational statement doesn't make it rational. At best, it makes it more comfortable.
>That actually *is* evidence.
>
>Its just not very good evidence.
>
>In fact, the evidence is so bad, Malcom himself criticized it.
So wait, is that the new, "hip" spelling of the man's name? You've used it more than once, so I'm guessing it's not a typo.
>
>That being the case, you can admit that it was bad evidence
>too.
Bad evidence of what, that the white man is the devil? Evidence is irrelevant in the context of an irrational, ill-defined claim. Hell, maybe the white man is the devil, I'll never be able to say either way, rationally.
>And you can also compare that evidence, that argument, to the
>
>one that 3X is creating here in regards to the Pentagon and
>9/11.
>
>And if you rid yourself of your white pride, you'd be able to
>admit:
>
>"3X's 'theory' about something being wrong about 9/11 and the
>Pentagon
>isn't very radical at all, far less radical than other
>conpsiracy
>theories that I(you) don't openly criticize."
Again, I don't care whether it's radical. I care whether it's justified. It isn't, and if anybody started a thread around here about an equally unjustified claim, then I'd probably attack that one, too.
>>Then my guess is that you haven't followed the events in
>>enough detail.
>
>Detail?
>
>What detail?
>
>The details are specifically what the point of contention is
>here.
>
>The details are incomplete and incoherent.
The details are always incomplete and incoherent to some extent. But in this case, they are fully in line with the standard account of the events, and complete and coherent enough to support the standard account of the events. There is simply no reason to doubt the standard account. That's what makes this thread so loony.
>The difference between me and you is, you reflexively take the
>stance
>opposite to that of 3X and Aquaman, largely because you don't
>like black
>people who think like they do. Had a white person, one of
>your friends, made
>this exact same post, you would have seriously entertained it.
Luckily we'll never know, because my friends aren't crazy.
But there are plenty of white people in the world who entertain this kind of bullshit, and they are just as loony as 3X. That's my daily compliment to Marcus3X.
|
