Alan Watt.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

So you oppose the opt-in system as well? After all, its the step before the opt-out step....so it too must be evil, right?

Isn't it amazing how you don't hear many people arguing against the evil that is "opt-in"? After all...its the first step on this slippery slope, but they're delighted to take it.

Incidentally, my previous post contains at least one factual inaccuracy. I put it there deliberately.

Anyone who spots it will, at the least, be somewhat informed about the facts of the issue at hand, rather than just believing what has been spoon-fed to them by someone with an agenda. Whether you share my position or not is irrelevant....if you can't spot the factual error, then you obviously aren't informed on the subject and should consider the basis on which you are making your judgement.

What are you saying? Stop rambling it is a simple concept.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

Not able to make your case without insulting those who don't share your opinion?

Shame.

No. Am I forcing my views on others, no. Will this system be physically forced on me, yes. Is that clear enough?

Pascal14

Bonkey? Catch a hold of yourself.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

The problem is when the opt out clause is removed. Everything is introduced step by step, have you not figured that out yet.

The problem with your problem is that even if this were introduced there's no evidence that an opt out close would ever be removed.

Your Alan Watts has literally leapt from A to Z when he claims 'Britain wants to own your body'

I am not a do gooder.

Well I am, or intent to be. I hope that when I die my body can be of some use to someone who needs it. Hence I carry a donor card.

Pascal14

Dirty Dave wrote: »

Well,

He mentioned in one of his shows, how the book 2001 by Arthur C Clarke alluded to 9/11. I've read that book and all its sequels and to be honest - I just dont see it.

In the land of the bilnd, the one eyed man is king.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

Well I am, or intent to be. I hope that when I die my body can be of some use to someone who needs it. Hence I carry a donor card.

As it should be. I don't, and I want to be left as I am.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

Cut down your essays, I don't have the time.

Its your own free choice to partake here. You can opt out of this discussion whenever you want and opt back in when you have time.

Surely opt out is the opposite of what should be going on in a democratic state.

Really? When did you opt in to being a citizen of whatever country you belong to?

It is about free choice, thats all.

You have free choice in an opt-out system. You can freely choose to opt out.

Don't try to break it down any other way.

Thats the second time in one post you've told me what to do. Are you now my dictator? Is this the type of freedom your 'sanity' is in favour of - being able to dictate to people when they don't do what you'd like them to?

If so, then thanks, but no thanks. Thats one form of 'sanity' I'll reject thanks.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

Bonkey? Catch a hold of yourself.

I'm not the one here telling others what to do.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

No. Am I forcing my views on others, no. Will this system be physically forced on me, yes. Is that clear enough?

Physically forced upon you?

If you feel so strongly against your organs being donated, you can opt out.

Nobody is being forced to do anything, and I hasten to add, the system isn't even in place yet

In the land of the bilnd, the one eyed man is king.

Pithy. Utterly irrelevant and doesn't take away from his point. But Pithy none the less.

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

In the land of the bilnd, the one eyed man is king.

That's exactly the kind of stuff Alan Watt says. I don't understand him either.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

Really? When did you opt in to being a citizen of whatever country you belong to?

.

When you get a birth certificate. Look into this.

bonkey wrote: »

You have free choice in an opt-out system. You can freely choose to opt out.

Totally different thing entirely. Dont play stupid.

Pascal14

meglome wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of stuff Alan Watt says. I don't understand him either.

Yeah, Alan Watt, its about time this got back on topic.

Can anyone point out another "crazy" statement he has made?

Remember, you have to listen first.

Dirty Dave

On your earlier comment about the one eyed man being king, can YOU tell me what Alan Watt was talking about? Because I would hope you know which part of 2001 (the book) refers to 9/11 before making a comment like that.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

When you get a birth certificate. Look into this.

Really? You made informed consent when you got your birth cert? Signed it of your own free will and volition? Made a conscious decision at the time?

Gosh you were a bright and precocious four day old baby weren't you!

Totally different thing entirely. Dont play stupid.

Again with the insults. You've claimed that this opt out clause will be removed, you've failed to see that the scheme allows you to remove yourself of your own free will. Horses and bodies of water spring to mind here.

Pascal14

Dirty Dave wrote: »

On your earlier comment about the one eyed man being king, can YOU tell me what Alan Watt was talking about? Because I would hope you know which part of 2001 (the book) refers to 9/11 before making a comment like that.

I never refered to 2001.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

When you get a birth certificate. Look into this.

So when you were newly born, you made a conscious choice to become a citizen of a country? I'm well impressed...thats not high on most new-borns' priority lists

Dont play stupid.

And again with the insults...

Seriously...do you think insulting people and telling them what to do helps convince others that you've got a well though-out point that you can argue cogently?

There is nothing "completely different" about opt-out. The only difference is the assumption of the position of those who do not express a preference.

As an example...when it comes to elections or referenda, those who do not vote are assumed to have no objection to the decision of those who vote (allowing for there being a quorum). If they want to express a preference, it is their job to do so. If htey don't know the election is on, or don't know about voting, or whatever....its no-one else's problem.

The same applies here. If you don't express an opinion, at present you are assumed to have a specific position. Under the new system, if you don't express an opinion, you are assumed to have no objection to someone else making that decision in your stead....just like with voting.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

Really? You made informed consent when you got your birth cert? Signed it of your own free will and volition? Made a conscious decision at the time?.

Proving my point, you have no say in the matter, and that is why it can later be rejected.

Diogenes wrote: »

Again with the insults. You've claimed that this opt out clause will be removed, you've failed to see that the scheme allows you to remove yourself of your own free will. Horses and bodies of water spring to mind here.

Again, let people act according to their individual beliefs. If you are a do gooder, do good.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

There is nothing "completely different" about opt-out. The only difference is the assumption of the position of those who do not express a preference.

Is their not. So I am obligated to spent my life running around opting out of everything? I can see you believe in freedom.

bonkey wrote: »

As an example...when it comes to elections or referenda, those who do not vote are assumed to have no objection to the decision of those who vote (allowing for there being a quorum). If they want to express a preference, it is their job to do so. If htey don't know the election is on, or don't know about voting, or whatever....its no-one else's problem..

Who counts the votes?

bonkey wrote: »

The same applies here. If you don't express an opinion, at present you are assumed to have a specific position. Under the new system, if you don't express an opinion, you are assumed to have no objection to someone else making that decision in your stead....just like with voting.

I have no idea what you mean.

humanji

Pascal14 wrote: »

Proving my point, you have no say in the matter, and that is why it can later be rejected.

Actually, isn't that quote just says the opposite of your point. You were automatically opted in and can freely opt out.

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

Is their not. So I am obligated to spent my life running around opting out of everything? I can see you believe in freedom.

Who counts the votes?

Do you 'truthers' go to obtuse school or something. I mean seriously, I've never come across a bunch of people who make less sense and constantly talk around in circles.

Ah the good old Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos, who watches the watchers. Since people work for The MAN, they can't be trusted. Even though many of us actually know these same people and know them to be trustworthy.

Pascal14

humanji wrote: »

Actually, isn't that quote just says the opposite of your point. You were automatically opted in and can freely opt out.

You are confused. The child was automatically sold into the system, literally, if you understand the process.

I am saying that people should not have something forced on them. Simple.

Pascal14

meglome wrote: »

Do you 'truthers' go to obtuse school or something.

What do you mean by truther?

I have no truth to uncover. Let the "good guys" do their thing, however leave me out.

Dirty Dave

Pascal14 wrote: »

I never refered to 2001.

No, but Alan Watt did. I think he is crazy for linking 2001 the book and the events of 9/11 2001.

You did ask for people to point out any other "crazy" statements of his didnt you?

Any when I asked you about it first, you said "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king".

To me, that indicates you know what Alan Watt was talking about when he made the link and that I'm blind for not seeing it? No?

Pascal14

Dirty Dave wrote: »

No, but Alan Watt did. I think he is crazy for linking 2001 the book and the events of 9/11 2001.

You did ask for people to point out any other "crazy" statements of his didnt you?

Any when I asked you about it first, you said "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king".

To me, that indicates you know what Alan Watt was talking about when he made the link and that I'm blind for not seeing it? No?

Fair enough. What did he say specifically about this link. From what I recall he was discussing the esoteric aspect in relation to the year 2001.
He linked the year to a great event that would kick start, a sort of catalyst, from which a new system would be introduced.

There is no doubt that Clarke was a mason and highly involved in the occult.

The quote was in reference to all his work and a lot of things he talks about.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

Proving my point, you have no say in the matter, and that is why it can later be rejected.

So I have your logic clear. You opt in to citizenship when you are born, but then you can opt out at later date. And this proves your point

Look at this another way. Under this new organ donation system you automatically opt in when you are born, and can opt out at a later date.

Sort of like the the exact same thing.

Can anyone point out another "crazy" statement he has made?

Remember, you have to listen first.

Can't listen, but I can read from his transcripts

Now I won't read the rest of that. People can go into that and see it for themselves, but this again is showing you what's happening in this present system we've got. Last week, I read something in one of my talks about the schools in Britain and how they're monitored et cetera, much like the U.S. has been, and this is to get a generation used to walking through a gate, being monitored, searched, maybe even stripped searched if necessary and living in a locked school. Because in Britain now they're putting ID threads, actual threads into their new school uniforms so they can get monitored wherever they go in the school and they can restrict access to certain doors. They can actually lock you in rooms. The doors won't open for you if a certain button is punched. These are prison camps.

From this transcript

That is a steaming pile of crap.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

That is a steaming pile of crap.

Load of crap? It is happening already.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/21/uk-secondary-school-tests-rfid-embedded-uniforms/

Àny other "crazy" statements?

humanji

Of course I'm confused. As pointed out to you, you're talking in circles. You said before that the "opt out" mechanism is a step towards removing peoples right to "opt out" altogether. Yet you then said that we are automatically opted into this system (or "sold" if you're a sensationalist), and that we can opt out at any time.

So if we can "opt out" of being a citizen, why is it such a problem to believe there's a something amiss with the "opt out" of the donor scheme?

I can't listen to any of Alan Watts, but from reading his transcripts, he just seems to be talking a load of rubbish. Well, mostly rubbish. He did come out with this little gem, when he was talking about something Adam Weishaupt said:

Alan Watt wrote:

He said the best way to confuse people or even recruit people into working as useful idiots, he called them, is to give them a great mystery, a great mystery and intrigue them into your organization and then you can use them, and hasn’t that ever being done and still going on today. There's no amount of people who are willing followers because we love to be fascinated.

Now, he meant that as a dig at people who don't follow his conspiracies, but it's incredibly apt for "truthers". The hint os a mystery has them defending anything he says like a cult following their leader. I think it's hilarious that out of so much nonsense, he comes up with a piece of truth.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

Load of crap? It is happening already.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/21/uk-secondary-school-tests-rfid-embedded-uniforms/

Àny other "crazy" statements?

From the same link

the trial is voluntary

Two words leap out at me "trial" and "voluntary"

Once again yourself and Alan has a problem with a concept's tense.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

From the same link



Two words leap out at me "trial" and "voluntary"

Once again yourself and Alan has a problem with a concept's tense.

Correct me if I am wrong. We all seem to be scientists. Is something not trialed before it is widely introduced.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-5671524-7.html

http://www.rfdesignline.com/news/202601957

Forget about this. The point has been made. What other crazy statements has he made?

Pascal14

humanji wrote: »

Now, he meant that as a dig at people who don't follow his conspiracies, but it's incredibly apt for "truthers". The hint os a mystery has them defending anything he says like a cult following their leader. I think it's hilarious that out of so much nonsense, he comes up with a piece of truth.

Your interpretation.

Thats not what he meant at all. Read the whole statement. As they say the environmental cirumstances are everything.