Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Alan Watt.

1356

Comments

  • #62
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    And you've missed my point.


  • #63
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Diogenes wrote: »
    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.

    Or look at it this way : accepting citizenship automatically includes acceptance that you be an organ-donor. You may, however, opt out of organ-donation without opting out of citizenship.
    Pascal14 wrote:
    I am saying that people should not have something forced on them. Simple.
    A recent discussion on boards concerned about how people of certain religious persuasions refuse blood transfusions. I absolutely accept that individuals should have the right to refuse a blood transfusion, but it will be a cold day in hell before I accept that an unconscious person should be allowed to die in case they mightn't want the blood transfusion which saves their life.

    If you don't want a blood-transfustion to be given to you if you are unable to voice a preference at teh time, then the onus is on you to opt out of standard medical care. Same applies for Do Not Recussitate (or No Heroic Measures) orders. You opt out of being given standard care.

    You, however, appear to be advocating their death...in the name of freedom.

    Opt-out is a standard medical practice. The only difference with organ donation is that the intention is to save someone else's life rather than that of the corpse being opted-in. Some may say that is a significant difference, but I wouldn't expect such people to make blanket statements about how simple the idea is that you should never be automatically opted in to something.
    Àny other "crazy" statements?
    Isn't one enough?


  • #64
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    Bonkey, that is for another day. Why draw the whole affair out, when infact everything is simple. If you want to donate, get a card. Leave it at that, forget about moral issues, religious issues or any other issue.

    Let the do gooders, do what they want. Accept personal responsibility.

    What Watt originally said was clearly not stupid as the original person said, the RFID chips in school clothing has been proven, now is there anything else?


  • #65
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    But isn't it easier to just have a card if you don't want to donate? Let those who are stingy and don't care about their fellow man do what they want. Let everyone else get along and try to help each other out.


  • #66
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    humanji wrote: »
    But isn't it easier to just have a card if you don't want to donate? Let those who are stingy and don't care about their fellow man do what they want. Let everyone else get along and try to help each other out.

    So you have no other statements made by Watt?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Well you missed the last point I made, so I don't see any reason to. But, being the glutton for punishment thatn I am, I'm reading through the other transcripts. It really is a load of paranoid rubbish.


  • #68
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    humanji wrote: »
    Well you missed the last point I made, so I don't see any reason to. But, being the glutton for punishment thatn I am, I'm reading through the other transcripts. It really is a load of paranoid rubbish.

    I get the point. However that is not important for this thread. If it really is rubbish, the statements should be jumping out, not much reading would be required.


  • #69
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Pascal14 wrote: »
    Bonkey, that is for another day.

    Right now, the only defence of Watt's point of view on the subject is that you say his perspective is not crazy....and now you're saying you don't want to discuss why that is.

    Thats fine.
    Why draw the whole affair out, when infact everything is simple.
    Hold on. Either you want to discuss this or you don't. IF you don't want to discuss it, then stop discussing it. If you want to keep discussing it, then the first thing we have to get past is your insistence that its "simple". Its not simple....which is part of the reason that Watt's pronouncements on the issue are wrong.
    What Watt originally said was clearly not stupid as the original person said,
    Watt claimed that its an attempt by the state to take ownership of your body. Thats crazy, stupid and ridiculous....but you need to look at the detail to understand why. You;ve made it clear that you don't want to discuss the detail.
    the RFID chips in school clothing has been proven,
    Proven to be a trial that you can select not to take part in.....which means that its nothing of the sort that Watt claimed.
    If it really is rubbish, the statements should be jumping out, not much reading would be required

    There isn't much reading required at all. However, some reading is required before one makes one's mind up about how accurate his portrayal of things are.

    If you get the order wrong, you'll decide that he's right, then go read up on it. Interestingly, this leads one to conclude that the mainstream media are complicit in trying to hide these conspiracies, because they try and sell "body snatching" as "opt out", or that they try and sell "mandatory security threads" as an optional trial.

    His statements don't stand up to 10 seconds of scrutiny by anyone willing to do their own research before reaching a conclusion.

    The guy makes a living out of this stuff. No-one has said he is stupid, nor that he doesn't know the fundamentals of how to appeal to his audience. What they have said is that the basis of his claims is crazy.


  • #70
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Pascal14 wrote: »
    Bonkey, that is for another day. Why draw the whole affair out, when infact everything is simple. If you want to donate, get a card. Leave it at that, forget about moral issues, religious issues or any other issue.

    Why should we? I mean forget all these issues
    Let the do gooders, do what they want. Accept personal responsibility.

    Or those who don't want to donate accept personal responsibility and organise dropping out of the scheme.

    What Watt originally said was clearly not stupid as the original person said, the RFID chips in school clothing has been proven, now is there anything else?


    Lets look at what he said again shall we
    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.

    What Watts has done has taken a kernel of truth that one school is running a voluntary trial of RDF chips, and he's announced that British Schools are prison camps. This is what conspiracy fantasists do, they take the truth and they twist it to suit their own agenda.

    Tell us Pascal how are British schools now prison camps?

    Yes the RDF chips can be used to lock doors, but do you know what else can be used? Locks.


  • #71
    Dirty Dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dirty Dave


    Another one, since you think you have successfully put the others to rest (though I think most here would disagree)

    "Lenin talked about a time that would come in the West – remember as I say this man took over the world revolutionary movement from Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini took over the actual Scottish Rite of Freemasonry from Albert Pike. He was trained by Pike to be a world revolutionary and he did go over to the Soviet Union and he led a big sect of it over there for a time. Mazzini actually authorized the creation of the mafia, but it was all connected with freemasonry, which again goes back to England or London where all freemasonic movements are registered. They all get their little registration there and their authorized little charter to exist. It doesn't matter what name they go under, it all goes back to that place. "

    I took this from one of the transcripts. Mr. Watt states that the freemasons authorised the creation of the mafia.

    Why would they do that exactly? Any why do people take it as fact that this was the case, when Alan Watt doesnt give any evidence to back it up?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Pascal14 wrote: »

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

    Ooopphs this one nearly got away.

    Don't suppose you've any evidence for either of the above claims?


  • #73
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    Dirty Dave wrote: »
    I took this from one of the transcripts. Mr. Watt states that the freemasons authorised the creation of the mafia.

    Why would they do that exactly? Any why do people take it as fact that this was the case, when Alan Watt doesnt give any evidence to back it up?

    Have you ever read "the godfather" by mario puzo. It contains a lot more than the film. Puzo had a family background in the mafia and he lays down a lot of interesting points.

    As for the mafia, the number 8, as above so below. Of course the mafia is controlled by the same people as run the legal system. With the information and survelliance abilities nowadays how could this not be the case?


  • #74
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    Diogenes wrote: »
    Or those who don't want to donate accept personal responsibility and organise dropping out of the scheme.
    .

    I Have dealt with this, stupid argument. Its my body, I'd like to have my say over what use it is put to.

    Diogenes wrote: »
    What Watts has done has taken a kernel of truth that one school is running a voluntary trial of RDF chips, and he's announced that British Schools are prison camps. This is what conspiracy fantasists do, they take the truth and they twist it to suit their own agenda.

    Tell us Pascal how are British schools now prison camps?

    Yes the RDF chips can be used to lock doors, but do you know what else can be used? Locks.

    Are you missing something here? I think this is perfectly obvious. Why would you want this system anyway? To protect children?


  • #75
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    bonkey wrote: »

    Watt claimed that its an attempt by the state to take ownership of your body. Thats crazy, stupid and ridiculous....but you need to look at the detail to understand why. You;ve made it clear that you don't want to discuss the detail..

    Again it is a simple issue. You decide what you do with your body, I could not care less, however do not force something on others. Keep your good guy save the world schemes to yourself.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Proven to be a trial that you can select not to take part in.....which means that its nothing of the sort that Watt claimed...

    Again I explained this. Are things not trialed before they are introduced.

    bonkey wrote: »
    His statements don't stand up to 10 seconds of scrutiny by anyone willing to do their own research before reaching a conclusion.

    The guy makes a living out of this stuff. No-one has said he is stupid, nor that he doesn't know the fundamentals of how to appeal to his audience. What they have said is that the basis of his claims is crazy.

    Again show me another Watt statement, This is simple, the case is clear.


  • #76
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    So have we any other statements?

    All three so far have been proven correct.


  • #77
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Proven correct & assuming you're correct are two very different things.


  • #78
    Pascal14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Pascal14


    humanji wrote: »
    Proven correct & assuming you're correct are two very different things.

    Fair enough. Give me another statement.


  • #79
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Pascal14 wrote: »
    I Have dealt with this, stupid argument. Its my body, I'd like to have my say over what use it is put to.

    I'm try to explain this simple using small words.

    YOU. DO. NOT. LOOSE. CONTROL. OVER. YOUR. BODY.

    THE. SCHEME. DOES. NOT. EXIST. YET.

    EVEN. IF. IT. DID.

    YOU. CAN. CHOOSE. TO. OPT. OUT. OF. THIS. SCHEME.


    Are you missing something here?

    Yes. The bit where he explains how exactly how our schools have become prisons camps, because of a voluntary trial in one school.
    I think this is perfectly obvious.

    The please elaborate where Mr Watt left off.

    Why would you want this system anyway? To protect children?

    I'm sorry you're putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say I wanted to scheme?

    I'm merely trying to figure out how he can use this to claim our schools are prison camps.
    Have you ever read "the godfather" by mario puzo. It contains a lot more than the film. Puzo had a family background in the mafia and he lays down a lot of interesting points.

    Yes I have and no where in it, does he claim the Freemason set up the Mafia. Thats what you are claiming remember.
    Of course the mafia is controlled by the same people as run the legal system. With the information and survelliance abilities nowadays how could this not be the case?

    I don't suppose you have any evidence to support this assertion?

    Or even perhaps you could provide motive for why someone would go to all that trouble.


  • #80
    Kernel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Ah, welcome to the wonderfully hostile world of boards.ie conspiracy theories. Anyway, anyone who is not a pseudo-skeptic / debunker, you really should check out Watts books and broadcasts, he really has done some great research, and put a lot of pieces together into a completely plausible conspiracy theory.


  • #81
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Kernel wrote: »
    Ah, welcome to the wonderfully hostile world of boards.ie conspiracy theories. Anyway, anyone who is not a pseudo-skeptic / debunker, you really should check out Watts books and broadcasts, he really has done some great research, and put a lot of pieces together into a completely plausible conspiracy theory.

    Care to provide some examples then Kernel? Because from the brilliant job our now banned new friend did, all I can see is some wild speculation drawn from some incredibly spurious and dubious "facts".

    I'm sorry Pascal was banned, I was dying to find out how the Freemasons created the mafia, or how he knew Arthur C Clarke was a Mason.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Why was he banned?


  • #83
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Because he was casey212. And a prick.


  • #84
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...And a prick.

    If you werent a boards mod you'd be perma banned yourself from conspiracy theories (and you should be) for this comment. At least if Miju was serious about his recently announced no nonsense policy. Regardless of casey1212/pascals duplicity, (assuming what you say is correct) - you have way overstepped a line that has been very clearly stated by the mods here on numerous occasions. But, I'm guessing nothing will happen.

    And anyway, based on the constant beligerence and antagonism from the usual suspects here (beneath a thin veil of insincere courtesy, as always of course) I think most objective readers will make their own minds up about who they think is a prick or not.


  • #85
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    He disparagingly referred to people willing to donate their organs as "do-gooders". He was a prick and a troll, and contributed nothing whatsoever of value to this site.


  • #86
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He disparagingly referred to people willing to donate their organs as "do-gooders".
    I saw his comments and it was clear enough to me that his disparagement was aimed far more at those who support the insane "opt out" idea than those who choose to opt in.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He was a prick and a troll, and contributed nothing whatsoever of value to this site.
    hmm... If casey1212/pascal was still allowed to post here I'd hazzard a guess his response to your comment would be pot, kettle black, if you know what I mean. I'd guess others might agree. Seeing as this site is supposed to be all about conspiracies and all, and all you do is constantly try to shoot down and ridicule/belittle anyone who wants to talk about them.


  • #87
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jessop1 wrote: »
    I saw his comments and it was clear enough to me that his disparagement was aimed far more at those who support the insane "opt out" idea than those who choose to opt in.'
    What's insane about an opt-out system? What, exactly, is inherently wrong with another person benefiting from your death?
    jessop1 wrote: »
    hmm... If casey1212/pascal was still allowed to post here I'd hazzard a guess his response to your comment would be pot, kettle black, if you know what I mean.
    I expect he'd be tickled pink at the idea of anyone defending his trolling.
    jessop1 wrote: »
    I'd guess others might agree. Seeing as this site is supposed to be all about conspiracies and all, and all you do is constantly try to shoot down and ridicule/belittle anyone who wants to talk about them.
    I ask questions. I'm aware of how unpleasant you find the idea of anyone disagreeing with your bizarre ideas, but that doesn't mean that asking questions is ridiculing or belittling anyone.


  • #88
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because he was casey212.

    Ah cool. I thought it was him and was thinking that he was Zippy too (but that remains to be seen.


  • #89
    Offalycool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    What happens when paramedics let you die because there is a market for your organs. I know it's distasteful, but likely to happen if the market demands it. I'm sure England would be a popular place to be sick.


  • #90
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    Offalycool wrote: »
    What happens when paramedics let you die because there is a market for your organs. I know it's distasteful, but likely to happen if the market demands it. I'm sure England would be a popular place to be sick.

    or what about those who dont have the capacity or ability to choose for themselves whether they want to donate their organs? eg the mentally ill, children without a guardian etc etc. Or those who dont know about the existence of the scheme?
    Or socially excluded like the homeless??

    The whole thing stinks for so many reasons I'm sure any moral person should see this.

    Certainly governments should promote and encourage opt ins and I'd like to see new and innovate ways of doing that eg information campaigns and incentives, but they should never be allowed to assume they can take someones organs.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    zippy 99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭zippy 99


    Offalycool wrote: »
    What happens when paramedics let you die because there is a market for your organs. I know it's distasteful, but likely to happen if the market demands it. I'm sure England would be a popular place to be sick.


    Excellent point.

    Having to 'Opt Out' is disgraceful.

    The donar scheme is well publicised, anyone who wants to donate can easily pick up a card. Leave the rest of us out off it.

    Moderator behaviour, regarding insulting posters, is also not on.

    Another thing, why not have a mod on CT who believes in a few of these toipcs.?

    Alan Watt is the most informed man on this planet, certainly among those who are not part of the agenda. Watt himself has been approached to be recruited numerous times into the agenda but has stuck to his morals. He dosent use conspiracy theories, all his arguments are based on publications by the ruling class.


Advertisement