Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Masonic Influence:

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
The Masonic Influence: Part 1 of 3

Regarding: The influence of masonry hereunder especially masons on the Secret Societies forum on Above Top Secret.

1.0 Introduction:
1.1 Hypothesis:
1.2 Problem:
1.3 Demarcation:
2.0 Analysis:
2.1 Argumentum Ad Hominem:
2.2 Victim Tactic:
2.3 Straw Man Tactic:
2.4 Summary:
3.0 Investigation:
3.1 Summary:
4.0 Conclusion:
4.1 Perspective:
5.0 Empiricism:
5.1 Reservations:

1.0 Introduction:

This thread is about the growing influence of masons, hereunder Blue Lodge masons and Scottish Rite masons.
This thread will debate the existent influence and manipulation produced by these masons on the Above Top Secret, Secret Societies forum.

1.1 Hypothesis:
The masons hereunder Blue Lodge and Scottish Rite masons on the Above Top Secret forums, are deliberately manipulating any criticism directed at their secret society structure.
In addition they are also continually ridiculing and undermining any critical thinking produced, using the argumentum ad hominem, victim and/or straw man tactic repeatedly.

1.2 Problem:
An argumentation on the Masonic influence on Above Top Secret.

1.3 Demarcation:
In this thread we will limit ourselves to current Masonic members and their habits and behaviours on Above Top Secret.
Neither background nor hidden motives etc. is relevant in this thread.
This thread is not about the alignment etc. of Freemasonry.


2.0 Analysis:
There are currently a large amount of masons on the Above Top Secret forum. Their agenda for being here, is according to the majority not to discuss conspiracy theory, but to defend the brotherhood from hatemongering produced by their term; Anti-Mason.
This term or label is used loosely and without any factual evidence, you are in their definition an Anti-Mason if you do not agree with them.
In their defence it is explicitly needed to say that there are a few guiding lights amongst their masses. It is just unfortunate that the majority (as in any society) suppresses this “enlightened” minority.

2.1 Argumentum Ad Hominem:


Source: Wiktionary:
Shortened from the Latin expression argumentum ad hominem, argument at the man (man as in a human being, not man as a male). From argumentum (meaning "argument") + ad (meaning "to" or "at") + hominem, the accusative singular of homo (meaning "man"). It can also mean attacking the messenger.


This is their most common tactics as already debated in my earlier threads. (see: this thread) Whenever a postulate or factual evidence is presented they resort to this as their primary choice.

2.2 Victim Tactic:


Source: Creative Destruction:
Forward
The forward version takes the following form:

The Victim(s) does X
which galvanises
the Attacker(s) to do Y,
where Y is inherently offensive against the Victim,
Y does not legitimately meet the Attacker’s needs resulting from X,
and the Victim is blamed.
Counterexample: Suppose you were to physically attack me, and in the process of defending myself I hit you. It would not be victim-blaming to blame you for your own injury, because hitting you was a legitimate way for me to meet my need for self-defence arising from your attack.

If instead I beat you to a pulp, then the argument is victim-blaming. In particular it is an example of the “offensive victim” variant, which I’ll discuss below:

Offensive Victim

Example: “The Palestinians got what was coming them, firing rockets into Israel like that.”

In this variant of the argument, X is (or is characterised to be) an offensive act, while the disproportionate nature of the response is justified, downplayed, or ignored.

Stupid Victim

Example: “I heard that he hit her again. Can’t say I’m surprised, I knew he was bad news the moment I saw him”.

Unguarded Victim

Example: “Why doesn’t she just leave him?”

The victim is blamed for failing to protect himself. There is a considerable overlap with the Stupid Victim. The Unguarded Victim is often given “advice”. For example, on how not to get raped.

And vice versa. It is very difficult to offer genuine anti-rape self-help advice to women, particularly feminist women, precisely because it is perceived as victim-blaming. What distinguishes real advice from victim-blaming is that real advice recommends appropriate avoidance and response to likely danger scenarios, while victim-blaming “advice” tries to “prevent” the rape that just happened, and recommends stereotypical virtuous behaviour as a purported defence against stereotypical attacks.

Innocent Victim

Example: “She was asking for it, dressed like that”.

In this version the only objection to X is that it galvanised the attack. This is victim-blaming in its purest form.

Backward
The backward version of the argument takes the following form:

The Attacker(s) does Y
which galvanises
the Victims(s) to do X
where Y is inherently offensive against the Victim
X is inherently offensive against the Attacker
but X does legitimately meet the Victim’s needs resulting from Y,
and the Victim is blamed.
In this version, the offensiveness of Y and/or the appropriateness of X are downplayed or ignored.

Equivalent Victim

Example: “I just caught the two of them fighting.”

Where the victim was merely defending themself.

Blamed Victim

Example: “Daran derailed the thread”.

This has a similar reversed dynamic, but instead of holding victim and attacker equivalent, the unprovoked attack is downplayed or ignored and the legitimate response is portrayed as the primary offence.

Little bit to Blame Victim

This variant exists in both backward and forward forms

Forward example: “Well, you must have don’t something to provoke him!”
Backward example: “I know he started it, but you were fighting too.”

In this variant, the blamer grudgingly admits that the greater part of the blame lies with the attacker, but still insists that the victim bear some of the blame. This is unfair to a wholly Innocent Victim because even a little bit to blame is closer to equivalence than to innocence.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by Tetragrammaton]




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
The Masonic Influence: Part 2 of 3

2.2 Victim Tactic: (continued)
As shown in the quote above, there are many ways to play the victim tactic. But the majority of masons here choose the forward and offensive victim tactic, when the argumentum ad hominem fails. They claim that they have always been hunted game, and that (using ad hominem) the tinfoil loon is just picking on these pure hearted men with good souls, that does nothing but sacrifice themselves, for the greater good of humanity.

Because we all know that charity is not done for the publicity, but more on this argument in chapter 2.3 Straw Man Tactic.

What needs to be emphasized here is the fact that no matter what argument or factual evidence is presented, they will use this excuse to ridicule the writer further.

2.3 Straw Man Tactic:


Source: Wiktionary / Wikipedia
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1986 passim, shows first known usages for things insubstantial date to 1585-95. Universal Dictionary of the English Language, 1897, Vol 4, p. 4485, notes "man of straw" as "The figure of a man formed of an old suit of clothes stuffed with straw; hence, the mere resemblance of a man; one of no substance or means; an imaginary person."

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.


This is the masons last line of defence, when the two other tactics have failed they will use this.
They will normally resort to this in a subliminal way, either swaying the focus of the discussion or data in a irrelevant way, or just plain out hide behind the fact that they as an organization do charity.

2.4 Summary:
What we have here is a clear manoeuvre used by any guilty party, whether or not they actually are guilty, they clearly feel guilty. The ridiculing and subliminal arrogant attacks are undisputed, over and over again we see that the masons on this site is above the rules of all other normal users. As we see it in the capitalistic western civilization.


3.0 Investigation:
We clearly see a pattern here, masons defending masons, masons attacking any criticism or scepticism. Masons ganging up on others, back padding each other and bending the system to their own favour. For example when we look at stars etc. awarded to the average user and compare them to the stars that masons get for controversial (borderline) comments etc. Also the fact that several masons have penetrated the administration of Above Top Secret, only further leads to the conclusion that in fact they (read: administration) are not impartial.

An observation: the new star system seems to work in an unintentional way, they are rarely used, which is a good thing, but you can clearly see that the Masonic group on Above Top Secret, uses these to promote a false sense of confirmation to outside or new users, since a new user will automatically assume that a post with many stars is a good post, when in fact it only shows (most of the time, in the case of the secret society forum) that it is a post, published by a mason.

3.1 Summary:
All in all there is a clear argument here, masons are indeed as they have pledged in secret, protecting each other in here, even when a mason steps over board the “enlightened” ones just remain silent, presumably under the excuse of ignorance. They also claim ignorance of any facts presented that does not fit with their reality or as in chapter 2 the attack the person presenting the facts.


4.0 Conclusion:
From my long time on ATS, do not let the join date fool you; I have seen this problem escalating, from tolerable to intolerable. Masons have indeed literally taken over control of the secret societies forum.

4.1 Perspective:
What I propose is a cease fire, I am sure that I am not the only person to tire about all the noise presented in here, from mason to anti-mason bashing.
I would like to discuss secret societies as a whole, from a political, social, economical and religious point of view, and be able to discuss without all the mason noise, what other critical thinkers as myself consider valid information or evidence concerning the evolution etc. regarding freemasonry etc.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by Tetragrammaton]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
5.0 Empiricism:
A philosophical discussion of this thread will follow shortly.

Well ill start with a confession, I do have my own agenda, and as I have mentioned before in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... I am however not Anti-Masonic, and if it wasn’t for the Danish freemasonry demand that you are a Christian (I am baptized but adhere to the pagan (Asatrue) belief system) I am sure I would be one myself. I was however once many years ago here on Above Top Secret a Anti-Masonic tinfoil madman, storming in here with my masonrywatch.com propaganda spewing ignorance all over the place. The masons here at that time, did not do a particular good job in convincing me that there weren’t anything sinister going on, they did however debunk a lot of the disinformation I had scooped up over my short time researching these topics, and for that I owe them my thanks.

But when I continued my criticism of the nepotistic organisation of the fraternity as a whole, and produced postulates about ancient sun worship dating back to the time before Sumeria etc. and provided data regarding this it was refuted by the 3 mentioned tactics, not viable counter argumentation etc.

Anyways, to sum this up, yes I indeed have an agenda, but as stated it is not Anti-Masonic. But recently I tire of all the noise produced here by the masons, hence the reason for creating this topic.

I want to debate if by chance there are a slim possibility that we can find co-existence on these boards and that we can produce a constructive debate and information sharing in the secret societies forum, concerning every secret society not just freemasonry.

And if possible, to have a debate about freemasonry without the interference of the freemasons as the ultimate arbiters, but subjective individuals like the rest of us.

In addition I would like to point out the fact that no one is objective of anything, hence we are all biased…


5.1 Reservations:
As nicely stated by a fellow ATS brother, I forgot to state my reservations.

In my time on ATS and in my life I have encountered more rational and spiritual awakened masons than none-masons. Moreover my statements can come off as a generalisation of freemasonry as a whole; this could be nothing further from the truth.

I am speaking of particular Masonic cases here on the Secret Societies forums, on Above Top Secret.

I do not believe that freemasonry as a whole is corrupted, i.e. that all individuals that are associated with freemasonry are in on this, there are however a clear pattern that I explain in detail, it is the pattern I would like to debate.


Here at the end I would like to thank you all for reading this camouflaged rant.

Respect and Peace Eternal
Tetragrammaton

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Tetragrammaton]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetragrammaton
 

You make an interesting hypothesis I for one look forward not only to it’s full posting but to the insuring debate.

On a personal note I am here to read the positions of the anti-masonry position and learn what motivates them. Unlike some of my brethren I feel the criticism helps keep us honest.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Student
 


That is commendable indeed my good friend, we seem to have common ground on that note…



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetragrammaton
 


I'm listening. I'll wait until completion to comment, I just wanted you to know you have my attention. Looks promising.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Hmmmm. He does make a valid point or two.

God knows I've been guilt of this.

My biggest beef is when someone comes here ready to attack us without any prior understanding or an attempt to learn what we are about.

When someone comes in here parroting freemasonwatch.com or another lame site preaching it as the gospel it just makes me go nuts



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Yay! Someone who knows what logical fallacies are. Unfortunately for you, you use them to make this post. For every point you make, I will make the counter-claim.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The idea of a “cease fire” is a long over due one. Let us all try and keep this thread (for once) a courteous forum where a true discussion could prevail. Several of your points have validity.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tetragrammaton
T2.3 Straw Man Tactic:


Source: Wiktionary / Wikipedia
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1986 passim, shows first known usages for things insubstantial date to 1585-95. Universal Dictionary of the English Language, 1897, Vol 4, p. 4485, notes "man of straw" as "The figure of a man formed of an old suit of clothes stuffed with straw; hence, the mere resemblance of a man; one of no substance or means; an imaginary person."

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.


This is the masons last line of defence, when the two other tactics have failed they will use this.
They will normally resort to this in a subliminal way, either swaying the focus of the discussion or data in a irrelevant way, or just plain out hide behind the fact that they as an organization do charity.


Is this statement in and of itself not a straw man? By this implication you are asserting several supposed 'facts' and among the number are these;
that in the debate the Masons are on the defensive, that the Masonic debater has already failed to prove his point with previous tactics and your further unfactual assertion of subliminal usage of said tactics.

If you wish to present yourself as unbiased or uninfluenced by any anti-Masonic leanings perhaps you should refrain from making generalized statements of opinion.

I do however look forward to a healthy debate of this post and your reamrks do indeed look to offer promising insight.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


You are absolutely right I will edit at once, I forgot to put in my reservations. Thank you for pointing that out.

I would like to remind the readers that this is my fifth language, and that I put this post together while preparing and eating my dinner.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Well after some small patches I think we are ready to start up the debate:

So I say, that you (read: masons) are deliberately undermining the very fabric of ATS, by ridiculing any critical thinking, of course you would not admit to the fact that there could indeed be some situations where your ancient and accepted order does not come to par.

In addition since this thread is up I would like to discuss if possible the social, religious, economic and political influence of fraternities as a whole…



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tetragrammaton
Well after some small patches I think we are ready to start up the debate:

So I say, that you (read: masons) are deliberately undermining the very fabric of ATS, by ridiculing any critical thinking, of course you would not admit to the fact that there could indeed be some situations where your ancient and accepted order does not come to par.

In addition since this thread is up I would like to discuss if possible the social, religious, economic and political influence of fraternities as a whole…


I present to you the straw man fallacy. You have just presented a straw man argument that masons would never admit that the fraternity has flaws. Therefore, the precepts of your argument do not reach your conclusion.

Given your OP, I am sure the irony does not fail you.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Mate you have issues. I think you need some recreational time. Read what I write, first of it was not a straw man argument, but an opening, nothing conclusive was put in that opening statement.
I did not back up the claim with an argument, it was ironic, if I really thought no mason would debate this, I would not have posted this.

Stick to the theme please, or go troll some where else, my patience is not made for this.

You see enemies where fellow brethren against ignorance stand.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
You made the mistake of acting like masons use logical fallacies (see the first post) - I am sorry you do not like it when it is pointed out that your fallacies make up the entirety of your argument.


Originally posted by TetragrammatonMate you have issues. I think you need some recreational time.


Logical fallacy: ad hominem. Invalid statement.


Originally posted by TetragrammatonWhat I write, first of it was not a straw man argument, but an opening, nothing conclusive was put in that opening statement.


Statements have assumptions, your assumption was a straw man because it was an argument that no one is actually going to argue about. You got called out on it.


Originally posted by Tetragrammaton to the theme please, or go troll some where else, my patience is not made for this.


Yet another ad ignorantium circumstantial logical fallacy. Invalid statement. Have you read your own thread? You are the person accusing us of making logical fallacies, when that is the basis of what you are typing.



Originally posted by Tetragrammaton You see enemies where fellow brethren against ignorance stand.


Logical fallacy: non sequitur. Invalid statement.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
So, basically you're saying that Masons should just passively sit back while people make unsubstantiated claims against their society...
Yeah, that's the problem, that is what the Masons have done for far too long and look at the ridiculosusness of the anti-Masonic movement because of it.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Mate you need to learn how to differentiate, the last post I directed at you was indeed ad hominem, but it had nothing to do with the thread as a whole, you are deliberately derailing it.

You nitpick at my attempt at an opening statement, and completely ignore the essence; it was indeed not a straw man argument, because I made no argument.

Lastly if you would refrain from cutting up my posts, they are typed as a whole, should be quoted as a whole and replied to as a whole.

You know you are reaching here, for the sake of peace, I ask you one last time, to constructively add to the debate!

If you are in doubt read my restrictions chapter 5.2.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


No you misunderstand something completely, that is exactly not what I am saying.
I respect that you want to deny ignorance, that you want to defend yourself against insubstantially and ridiculous statements. I would do the same indeed, what I am disputing here, is the fact that you got a star by we all know who, because of your intent to derail the thread, and in the same time cast bad light on me as a poster.

If you had just read what I wrote you would not have asked that question, and I know you read it, because you would not have said: “so basically you are saying” if you hadn’t read it, you summarized my post, hence you must have read it.

Anyways, already this is proven to be worthless, I am sorry for coming hard on you, but for some reason I got on the defensive, I wrote an open honest post, with no claim to be the 100 percent factual truth, I make mistakes, do masons?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Thank you for making this thread, hopefully it will point out some of the hypocrisy being perpetuated by some posters who are masons. There are only a few bad seeds, most of them are alright. I often find myself unwilling to post even my opinion in "anti-mason" (good research) threads, only because I don't want to get caught up in someone's argument or get accused of some sort of crime against humanity by some faceless person who does not know me in any way.

The more we complain, the more they have to listen I suppose.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetragrammaton
 


This would be a red herring fallacy, and is thus invalid. You should see my thread on Anti-Masons, I just covered this for you.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join