What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

The Great Awakening

Is the Great Awakening happening?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 39.0%

  • No

    Votes: 21 51.2%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • Total voters
    41
Microbeman

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
unclefishstick said:
i bet most people miss the part of the tou where gypsy is allowed to crash on your couch for as long as he likes and you have to supply buds:biggrin:
Click to expand...

No, he showed up here unannounced even, ate everything in the fridge and drank my 16 year old scotch - SOB!
 
H

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
BOOM! Deep State Exposed: The People will win


Federal Government Illegally Pressured Facebook to Censor CHD Website, Social Media Content, Lawsuit Alleges
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/federal-government-facebook-censor-chd-lawsuit/

"In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and two of Facebook’s “fact checkers.” The lawsuit asserts claims of illegal censorship in violation of the First Amendment, illegal “taking” in violation of the Fifth Amendment and corporate fraud in violation of federal law — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Lanham Acts."

"As a consequence, and as CHD has consistently argued, Facebook and Zuckerberg were not acting merely as private parties, but were functioning as government actors — and thus are subject to the First Amendment’s strictures against government censorship."

Kennedy vs The Deep State ...once again

This lawsuite will prove beyond a doubt that there is an active Deep State and that they are conspiring to commit crimes against humanity. And when you figure Chinese and other foreign influence, it becomes war crimes... Or, at least, it can. Is it a coincedence that Justice Thomas released his opinion this week? Is it a coincedence that voter fraud is now proven. Did these same tech giants play a role? What role?

Do you think Watkins has a role in any of this?
 
H

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
HjU6wO0m.jpeg
 
H

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
MrFancyPlants said:
Why does that matter? Do you form your opinion of George Floyd's legal rights based on my (probably assumed) feelings about Ashli Babbit? Or, as a "free thinker", do you form it based on your own careful reading of the US Constitution and applicable law? Just curious?

Do any of these pairs of statements seem contradictory?

Everything in the world happens for reasons that are complex and carefully concealed from mere mortals.​
Everything in the world happens for reasons that are plainly obvious to the conspiracy theorist.

The conspirators are so good at opsec that even the society's most educated experts cannot see the evidence of their conspiracy.
The conspirators are so bad at opsec that all their actions and plans can be easily exposed by uneducated conspiracy theorists.

Any "statement of fact" that contradicts the conspiracy theory is either irrelevant or is made up by the conspirators for the purpose of deception.
Any "statement of fact" that correlates with the conspiracy theory is undoubtedly true, and further reinforces it.

Official documents are part of the conspiracy, created to deceive researchers.
Official documents are indisputable when quoted out of context to support the conspiracy theory.

...​




Perhaps if you'd listened to your old man and gone to college, you could have learned about formal logic, proofs, testability and falsifiability of theories, correlation vs causation, etc. In the absence of a shared logical framework for a civilized debate, it's pointless to continue this discussion. I'm bowing out, and implore everyone else to do the same.

I hope you find a gentle, kind, empathetic soul to help you escape the hole you've dug yourself into.
Click to expand...

Well, you brought up due process, and whether or not, I believed that Floyd's rights were violated. I am having a hard time finding any violation. It was not pleasant to watch, but as I've said before, I do believe it was a staged event, meant for the purpose of being highly emotionally provocative. A 'psy-op.' So, you tell me how Floyd's right to due process was violated. I'll consider whatever your thoughts are.

But, yes. I did bring up Ashli Babbit because of an assumption that you probably don't have the same beliefs about Ashli Babbit's rights to due process and whether her rights were violated. The cases are interesting because in both cases, the officer involved is being charged with murder. I happen to see that BLM supporters are often viciously overjoyed to know that miss Babbit was shot and how she clearly deserved it and even went on to cheer the officer.

To your second point, about whether or not those statements seem contradictory or not. My response is that they SEEM contradictory, but in proper context, they are actually not entirely contradictory. Pretend it's on an IQ test and don't be afraid of what the answer is. Answer it logically and analytically. The problem with those sentences is that they are so absolute and have no room for subtle details and abnormalities. So, neither sentence is a true statement.

So, in the first example, you are comparing two false statements.

Also, in the second example, you are comparing two false statements.

In the third example, you mischaracterize a few things such as ""statement of fact."" Here, you could have just used 'statement.' "Of fact," implies bias and is a mischaracterization as well. You put quotation marks around the term, in an apparent attempt, to leave yourself an out by saying, or implying, that it doesn't mean that. Or, at least that's the way it comes off to me.

In the second part of the third example, you once again use a false statement as an example, which mischaracterizes the general viewpoint of any diligent conspiracy theorist.

In the fourth example, you compare a true statement to a false statement, which is once again mischaracterizes the work of researchers and shows a significant bias. So, whether those two are contradictory, or not... well, I honestly don't know how to categorize them as contradictory , or not. But, if this were an IQ test, I guess at this point I might just guess and say that they are not contradictory, because I can't find the contradiction.

And, to your final point, I disagree, I think I turned out better for not having gone. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than the smartest professor. But, I do think I do better at those things than the vast majority of the students that these institutions churn out and probably could prove many of the best professors wrong on many things. That's just the nature of intellectualism. And, it is not limited or contained to academia.

I think you should stick around, but truth is not for everyone.
 
H

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
Salty Cracker makes an excellent point here. If hospitals want to fix "systematic racism' by demoting white peoples access to services. They are then admitting to PRIOR racism toward non-whites. This can't be fixed through more "reversed" racism, because white people did not ask them to be racist on their behalf. So, the only legal option is criminal prosecution and civil financial REPARATIONS (to be paid out by the privately run and 'for profit' hospitals).

But, no. They'd rather do it the INHUMAN way.
"WOKENESS"

https://odysee.com/@SaltyCracker:a/blmhosp:d
 
audiohi

audiohi

Well-known member
Veteran
Hempy McNoodle said:
Well, you brought up due process, and whether or not, I believed that Floyd's rights were violated. I am having a hard time finding any violation. It was not pleasant to watch, but as I've said before, I do believe it was a staged event, meant for the purpose of being highly emotionally provocative. A 'psy-op.' So, you tell me how Floyd's right to due process was violated. I'll consider whatever your thoughts are.

But, yes. I did bring up Ashli Babbit because of an assumption that you probably don't have the same beliefs about Ashli Babbit's rights to due process and whether her rights were violated. The cases are interesting because in both cases, the officer involved is being charged with murder. I happen to see that BLM supporters are often viciously overjoyed to know that miss Babbit was shot and how she clearly deserved it and even went on to cheer the officer.

To your second point, about whether or not those statements seem contradictory or not. My response is that they SEEM contradictory, but in proper context, they are actually not entirely contradictory. Pretend it's on an IQ test and don't be afraid of what the answer is. Answer it logically and analytically. The problem with those sentences is that they are so absolute and have no room for subtle details and abnormalities. So, neither sentence is a true statement.

So, in the first example, you are comparing two false statements.

Also, in the second example, you are comparing two false statements.

In the third example, you mischaracterize a few things such as ""statement of fact."" Here, you could have just used 'statement.' "Of fact," implies bias and is a mischaracterization as well. You put quotation marks around the term, in an apparent attempt, to leave yourself an out by saying, or implying, that it doesn't mean that. Or, at least that's the way it comes off to me.

In the second part of the third example, you once again use a false statement as an example, which mischaracterizes the general viewpoint of any diligent conspiracy theorist.

In the fourth example, you compare a true statement to a false statement, which is once again mischaracterizes the work of researchers and shows a significant bias. So, whether those two are contradictory, or not... well, I honestly don't know how to categorize them as contradictory , or not. But, if this were an IQ test, I guess at this point I might just guess and say that they are not contradictory, because I can't find the contradiction.

And, to your final point, I disagree, I think I turned out better for not having gone. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than the smartest professor. But, I do think I do better at those things than the vast majority of the students that these institutions churn out and probably could prove many of the best professors wrong on many things. That's just the nature of intellectualism. And, it is not limited or contained to academia.

I think you should stick around, but truth is not for everyone.
Click to expand...

You said false statement a bunch of times...

Just to start...

No charges recommended for officer who shot Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot, source says
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...pitol-n1256522


Let us know when there are "actual" murder charges for the unnamed officer. Then, I'll proofread your word salad further for you. You tend to get a bunch of details wrong.
 
TPFTFW

TPFTFW

Active member
Veteran
Hempy McNoodle said:
Well, you brought up due process, and whether or not, I believed that Floyd's rights were violated. I am having a hard time finding any violation. It was not pleasant to watch, but as I've said before, I do believe it was a staged event, meant for the purpose of being highly emotionally provocative. A 'psy-op.' So, you tell me how Floyd's right to due process was violated. I'll consider whatever your thoughts are.

But, yes. I did bring up Ashli Babbit because of an assumption that you probably don't have the same beliefs about Ashli Babbit's rights to due process and whether her rights were violated. The cases are interesting because in both cases, the officer involved is being charged with murder. I happen to see that BLM supporters are often viciously overjoyed to know that miss Babbit was shot and how she clearly deserved it and even went on to cheer the officer.

To your second point, about whether or not those statements seem contradictory or not. My response is that they SEEM contradictory, but in proper context, they are actually not entirely contradictory. Pretend it's on an IQ test and don't be afraid of what the answer is. Answer it logically and analytically. The problem with those sentences is that they are so absolute and have no room for subtle details and abnormalities. So, neither sentence is a true statement.

So, in the first example, you are comparing two false statements.

Also, in the second example, you are comparing two false statements.

In the third example, you mischaracterize a few things such as ""statement of fact."" Here, you could have just used 'statement.' "Of fact," implies bias and is a mischaracterization as well. You put quotation marks around the term, in an apparent attempt, to leave yourself an out by saying, or implying, that it doesn't mean that. Or, at least that's the way it comes off to me.

In the second part of the third example, you once again use a false statement as an example, which mischaracterizes the general viewpoint of any diligent conspiracy theorist.

In the fourth example, you compare a true statement to a false statement, which is once again mischaracterizes the work of researchers and shows a significant bias. So, whether those two are contradictory, or not... well, I honestly don't know how to categorize them as contradictory , or not. But, if this were an IQ test, I guess at this point I might just guess and say that they are not contradictory, because I can't find the contradiction.

And, to your final point, I disagree, I think I turned out better for not having gone. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than the smartest professor. But, I do think I do better at those things than the vast majority of the students that these institutions churn out and probably could prove many of the best professors wrong on many things. That's just the nature of intellectualism. And, it is not limited or contained to academia.

I think you should stick around, but truth is not for everyone.
Click to expand...


So you think the extermination of a potentially armed citizen trying to break into the senate hall.. is the equivalent of a man being detained and killed.


she could have listened, but she didn’t. and instead she bled to death confused and unaware she’s about to die. while of her fellow conspirators just sat there and yelled and continued to block any potential EMT involvement.


personally I laughed at the video.
then I went to her parler or Twitter page or whatever and laughed at those videos she made while driving on the way to said “rally”

you all scream for another civil war thinking your the only ones who are armed.

that’s not the case.
 
H

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
audiohi said:
You said false statement a bunch of times...

Just to start...

No charges recommended for officer who shot Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot, source says
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...pitol-n1256522


Let us know when there are "actual" murder charges for the unnamed officer. Then, I'll proofread your word salad further for you. You tend to get a bunch of details wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. Doesn't change much...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bunch
And, I disagree that I get a "bunch" of details wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top