I'm laughing even harder that someone who can make such pointless little circles (as albed did in his last 'response' to me) wants anyone to believe they have 'the big picture'--that someone can "evaluate large amounts of information and come to rational conclusions" when they apparently can't even get the gist of a couple of simple paragraphs.
As to inconclusiveness being a crucial aspect of certain questions, It's downright scary that you couldn't figure this out on your own and you have to ask for examples. Did you really think you had me there? Well that's even scarier, I can think of about 1000 examples without even really trying, but you really must believe you have all the answers.
Did OJ do it? When will you die? Is there life after death? What will you be doing at 6:15 PM on July 14th, 2018? What will happen if you gamble your paycheck on the lottery? What happened to the dinosaurs? Is there life on other planets? What will be the total cost of the war in Iraq? How many innocent people are in prison? When will it rain next? When will the sun burn out? Oscillating Big Bang or steady state? Particle or Wave? Choice or Genetic? Global warming or no problem? Does Michael Jackson have sex with little boys? Did Janet Jackson mean to flash her tit? If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Does the human body actually lose 21 grams at the moment of death, and why? What was the hump under the president's jacket? Who is right about Jesus, the Christians or the Jews? Why do we dream? What happened to the Anasazi? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Will Iraq be a successful democracy? Is it possible to build a perpetual motion machine? What did William Shakespeare eat for breakfast on his 11th birthday? Will artificial intelligence ever exceed human intelligence? How would gay people getting married affect straight people getting married? Is the speed of light an inflexible constant? How many more Americans will die in Iraq? Who will be the first human to step foot on Mars? When and where will the next earthquake be? Are all crop circles hoaxes? Will a democratic Iraq prevent future 911s? Is telepathy possible? How would the last election have turned out if everyone who didn't vote voted? Who was Jack the Ripper? Where is Bid Laden? If you flip a coin 100 times, how many times will it land on heads and how many on tails? How many fingers am I holding up right now?
To anyone who claims to be as smart as you it should be plain as day that in most of the above examples if you believe you have conclusive answers it is precisely that, a belief. You don't
know the answers and you may
never know the answers, but you may prefer to believe one thing over another. It also seems ridiculous to have to point out that affirming the inconclusiveness of most of these problems is the most important aspect. The concept of manmade global warming has been around for about 30 years, but it's still inconclusive. Those who affirm its inconclusiveness are still doing the work of trying to determine if it's a viable concept, while those who believe one or another conclusion simply pointlessly argue with each other about their beliefs.
How much would you bet with someone that you could flip a coin and have it land on heads 100 times in a row? Hopefully not much--but I can't be sure. I haven't drawn any conclusions about exactly how stupid you may be.
Quote:
|
There is no "official view" that you people keep referring to. There is sworn testimony by people who have been established as being in a position to have direct knowledge of the events they're testifying to. If you want to ignore them and believe whatever nutcase some lowlife tabloid reporter dredged up then that's your perogative.
|
Obviously since you're too lazy and burnt out to actually analyze the situation for yourself you believe you can avoid defending this official view by claiming it doesn't exist, but no one believes you. So what value is this sworn testimony by people who have been established as being in a position to have direct knowledge of the events if not to serve as an "official view?" Seems if there's no official view as you claim, that would be a lot of bother for nothing. As I recall, the "official view" of what happened played an enormous role in many policy making decisions of the last few years, did you miss all that? And by the way, where is this sworn testimony? Can you produce it? And if it's all so obvious why would anyone bother to collect such testimonies? Also, do sworn testimonies represent absolute truth in every case?
In a previous post you claimed "in keeping with your self-image as nonconformist rebels you start parroting whatever is contrary to mainstream convention thereby proclaiming: 'look how special and different I am'." What is this "mainstream convention" of which you speak? It's nothing like an "official view" is it?
And by the way, since you're attacking people's spelling, you might want to run a spell check on your own posts, you seem to have no idea how to spell inconsistencies or prerogative.