#31

Brown Bomber said:

No, I am saying that if you reach a conclusion based on pre-conceived notions, as you freely admitted to then your conclusion is biased and essentially worthless.

Can we look forward to you taking every Fox News bullsh!t report seriously from here on in, BB? After all, their ravings are still a lot more sensible than those of John Hill!

stoneill Registered User
#32

What exactly is his point?

Government use media for their own use? Shock Horror!
Prepared Emergency Plan? That's the point of a plan.
Mock anti-terror drill? If Terrorists can think it so can emergency responders.
Bomb on a bus! - Jeeze - how come we didn't think of that!
Bomb on a tube - now how come we didn't consider that!

clever_name Registered User
#33

Brown Bomber said:
His views on Ian Mckellan and star wars are completely irrelevant to any facts/inferences presented/made in the film.



But completly relevent to his credibility, really why would anyone pay attention to what this guy says...

Brown Bomber said:


My knowledge or lack of knowledge about Muad Dib or anyone/anything else is irrelevant to what is a fallacy. Your ad-hom's against the filmaker were fallacies. There is no two ways about it.




Again you have stated that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to comment on any errors in my reasoning. You have admitted ignorance of the issue, your opinion is worthless.



Brown Bomber said:



No. They are irrelevant to the film and the facts presented therein.


No, I am saying that if you reach a conclusion based on pre-conceived notions, as you freely admitted to then your conclusion is biased and essentially worthless.




Are you serious? everyone has preconcieved notions about everything! Its called life.

Answer this - are you saying you have no preconcieved notions about anything?

#34

Monty Burnz said:
It would not refute the theory, as I agreed. But it would probably mean that the theory that Darwin actually came up with was that animals were descended from alien biscuits. What we know as 'Darwin's theory' would have been discovered by someone sane.


Right, but my only point is that nothing that Darwin believed, even if he later became a Creationist renders his theory false. Likewise, none of Muad Dib's religious beliefs effects the truth or otherwise of his 7/7 film. Unless they can be demonstrated to be intertwined.

Nobody has shown this to be the case but jumped in with ad-hominen attacks.

#35

Brown Bomber said:
Unless they can be demonstrated to be intertwined.

Fair point - but they are. His world-view is completely nuts, and this is just another facet of that twisted world-view. If you feel like a trip into insanity, spend an hour on his site reading - say - five or six of his beliefs/CTs/theories. The 7/7 one fits in very comfortably with the rest.

1 person has thanked this post
#36

King Mob said:
From what I have read, it's the same stuff he used to conclude that Star Wars is real, thus making it suspect.

From what you have READ???
It's a film. Have you not even watched it???

King Mob said:
It's not ad-hom attack, it's simply a fact.
You discount any offical sources because they are offical, that's it.

Well that's crap for a start. I'd be surprised if I don't link to more "official sources" than anyone else in the forum.

King Mob said:
It's no different to what you are saying we shouldn't be doing.

Being a skeptic is fun!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

And lest you forget, I am the kook here, surely you have higher standards???

King Mob said:
Except that they guy you are defending is presenting very very silly claims.

I am not defending him. I am defending logic

#37

Monty Burnz said:
Fair point - but they are. His world-view is completely nuts, and this is just another facet of that twisted world-view. If you feel like a trip into insanity, spend an hour on his site reading - say - five or six of his beliefs/CTs/theories. The 7/7 one fits in very comfortably with the rest.

OK. But I watched his film years ago. I had no idea who he was at the time and no idea after, other than he was a mildly spoken North of England gentleman. I don't actually remember him bringing attention to himself in any way, or pushing any agenda beyond the supposed inconsistencies in the official 7/7 narrative. Though viewed with the benefit of hindsight I could concieivably reconsider.

Can we be sure he even held these same views he now holds in 2007? On Star Wars etc...

1 person has thanked this post
#38

clever_name said:
But completly relevent to his credibility, really why would anyone pay attention to what this guy says...

I am not claiming he is credible but that it is wrong to assume that because a person gets claim X wrong that claim Y is de-facto wrong also.

clever_name said:
Again you have stated that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to comment on any errors in my reasoning. You have admitted ignorance of the issue, your opinion is worthless.

I am in a position to comment on errors in your reasoning if you make errors in your reasoning. You seem to have taken it personally. I apologise if that's the case.

clever_name said:
Are you serious? everyone has preconcieved notions about everything! Its called life.

Of course. However, to try to find the truth we should at least try to avoid it, right? You have intentionally opted-in to bias before witnessing the evidence.

clever_name said:
Answer this - are you saying you have no preconcieved notions about anything?

Like I said, yes (edit:meant no). I am human.

enno99 Registered User
#39

Brown Bomber said:
OK. But I watched his film years ago. I had no idea who he was at the time and no idea after, other than he was a mildly spoken North of England gentleman. I don't actually remember him bringing attention to himself in any way, or pushing any agenda beyond the supposed inconsistencies in the official 7/7 narrative. Though viewed with the benefit of hindsight I could concieivably reconsider.

Can we be sure he even held these same views he now holds in 2007? On Star Wars etc...



was there a thread about his arrest on here can anyone remember if this star wars / kill gays /etc came up

#40

enno99 said:
was there a thread about his arrest on here can anyone remember if this star wars / kill gays /etc came up


yep
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59434074

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056563012

Probably more as well.

1 person has thanked this post
King Mob Registered User
#41

Brown Bomber said:
From what you have READ???
It's a film. Have you not even watched it???

Because there is plenty of information about what the film is about both on his site and on this thread. From what i've read about the film and the fact that his logic leads him to believe very silly things, I don't see why I should waste my time any more that you should to check whether his Star Wars nonsense is true.
Brown Bomber said:

Well that's crap for a start. I'd be surprised if I don't link to more "official sources" than anyone else in the forum.

Lol.

Jonny7 Registered User
#42

Mexican stand-off - no one will watch the video


You can count me the hell out, last Muad'Dib video two weeks ago I almost had a brain aneurysm

1 person has thanked this post
#43

King Mob said:
Because there is plenty of information about what the film is about both on his site and on this thread.

Correction, there is nothing on this thread regarding the content of the film. However, I did check the site and I hadn't realised that there was a transcript.
From this I learned that in the entire film transcrpt there is:

  • No mention of "Jesus"
  • No mention of "Jew"
  • No mention of Hitler
  • No mention of "Star Wars"
  • No mention of "gay"
  • No mention of "homosexual"
  • No mention of "McKellan"



So what exactly do you have a problem with?

From what i've read about the film and the fact that his logic leads him to believe very silly things, I don't see why I should waste my time any more that you should to check whether his Star Wars nonsense is true.

Well you should at least watch the film or not comment considering that it is the topic of conversation.

enno99 Registered User
#44

Please note: Due to having to avoid the "Mark of the Beast" we now
only accept cash.

http://jahtruth.net/wayintro.htm

nearly choked with laughing when I read that

1 person has thanked this post
King Mob Registered User
#45

Brown Bomber said:
Correction, there is nothing on this thread regarding the content of the film. However, I did check the site and I hadn't realised that there was a transcript.
From this I learned that in the entire film transcrpt there is:

  • No mention of "Jesus"
  • No mention of "Jew"
  • No mention of Hitler
  • No mention of "Star Wars"
  • No mention of "gay"
  • No mention of "homosexual"
  • No mention of "McKellan"


So what exactly do you have a problem with?

I don't have a problem with it per se.
I do find his views hilariously bigoted and silly. And that's why I and most reasonable people don't take him seriously.

Brown Bomber said:

Well you should at least watch the film or not comment considering that it is the topic of conversation.

But why? You seem to have no issue dismissing his views on Star Wars without even looking into it?
Why is it a problem to bring up the fact that this guy doesn't exactly think straight?

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!