David Icke…..Ufology’s Worst Ambassador

page: 27
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


He's working for the people that perpetrate that sick stuff and making money off it all the while. He's actually protecting those people by making the mainstream unaware masses think that someone who believes there's a child sex scandal involving some important people= alien shape-shifting believing nut-job . That's the problem... at least we can both agree-- David Icke:


Mumbotron.....

I think you'll find we agree on most of that which we are discussing, here.


You know.....

I really think you summed that up very well.....


"He's actually protecting those people by making the mainstream unaware masses think that someone who believes there's a child sex scandal involving some important people= alien shape-shifting believing nut-job"


So importantly, we both agree Icke is damaging people.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not




posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 





You don't speak for what you believe. In a post in this thread dated 7.1.2010, you told us there was no connection between Icke and UFO research, that Icke never discusses UFOs. Yet four days before, you posted in a discussion about David Icke's new book Moon Matrix, where he claims the moon is an artificial construct built by aliens to control us. You knowingly engage in lies to defend Icke.


Man you guys really feel the need to drag in stuff from outside this thread, don't you, a bit desperate.

What does the above have to do with UFO's? What does that thread have to do with UFO's. What did I say in that thread that would link Icke to UFO's? Jeez, what a load of BS.

You accuse me of lying, but you're the one doing it. Pathetic.




A poor attempt at an ad hominem


No, it's called sarcasm.




Not necessarily. Being wrong does not translate to having a "screwed up life", though I would question their judgement. However, those who have completely themselves over to Mr. Icke's philosophies have made questionable decisions in their lives.


How can you know that from reading comments on the internet? You can't, you are just making this stuff up obviously.




Show me where I am wrong.


That's rich, how can I prove a negative? Talking about fallacies. It's just a simple fact that one cannot judge peoples lives from reading their comments on an internet board.

You guys are making the claims about these people, you need to back up your claims, it's normal practice here on ATS.




You have not produced a cogent argument for why any of Icke's critics are wrong. All you have done is repeat the claim we are wrong and engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy.


I'm asking for evidence to back up the claims in the OP, wich I have every right to, you are the one turning this arouind on me.

The OP needs to back up his claims, but refuses. I'm not making any claims, I'm asking for evidence. Don't twist things.




You are denying that Icke has either fans or supporters or believers? That only demonstrates your willingness to lie to defend him.


I don't believe there is a group of people that follow Icke exclusively and with all their attention.

It's just random people that listen to him and probably loads of other stuff.

Just because you read the comments of people on Icke threads, doesn't mean they are all the same and part of one group that has allegiance to Icke.

That's just an assumption and generalisation.




What else should we examine them by?


You shouldn't examine "them" in the first place, because there is no "them", just random people with an opinion about Icke that left a comment on the internet.

There is not much to examine if you only have some internet comments from people you don't know at all, and know nothing about their lives.




Bulverism and another appeal-to-motive.


You say stuff like that when you got nothing better.




More deflection. The topic is David Icke and the danger he[/] presents, not general politics.


You are the one that brought up the "threat to democracy", I just expanded on that.



















[edit on 4-7-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





No you have a thing called Narcissistic Epilepsy, it's when you involuntarily argue for the sake of arguing. High horse comes to mind too...


Right, if you feel that way, why did you start arguing with me, I wasn't responding to you, you responded to me, what does that make you?

Like I said before, if MMN had just answered my question, or admitted that his thread is based purely on opinion, the argument would be over.




I think it's more that the OP hasn't answered a question to your satisfaction. Two different things.


That's what you guys keep repeating.

He hasn't answered at all. Please direct me to his answer, or direct me to the part of the OP that answers my question.

If you do, I will shut up, but you can't.




I don't like pseudo-science, lies, fear mongering and pumpkin. This is nice isn't it? Sharing...


Then I don't know why you have a problem with me asking the OP to back up his claims.




Nope, it's an observation.


Right, so I could call you a *!#$%@&^% and get away with it because it is just an observation.

Calling someone a "mad tin hatter" is Ad Hominum Chad. But whatever, do as you like.




There is no stupid questions, there is only stupid answers.


What a random statement, I don't see how it applies.




I did, because it is a rant about something you don't like "WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE HERE????" So basically, if these people don't think the same way you do, you don't trust their motives.


Are you deliberately spreading lies about me, you are misrepresenting me, this was my premise:




see alot of "resident experts", "hardcore debunkers" and "fundamentalist skeptics" post in a way that makes me wonder if they believe in any of the conspiracy theories here on ATS.





There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, we need it, but in the end, ATS is a CONSPIRACY site, and if you don't believe in any of the theories presented on this site, what are you doing here?


Really pathetic how you have to drag this into it, and twist it to attack my character, really really pathetic Chad. Desperate are we?




Nope, dig a little deeper and you are just another believer, maybe a little more bitter than most. Perhaps Blossom Goodchild let you down, or you're frustrated with the false hopes of the disclosure project?


More baseless attacks, did you see me posting in such threads, did I make any claims about that no. You are just making stuff up now.

That's cool, it means you have no other way of dealing with me. This says more about you than me Chad.






I'm not limited, you're massively generalising now, and know nothing of what I believe.


Your posts make it clear that you always limit yourself to the "safe" side of a story.




Better than grasping at straws eh?


You are doing both, I wouldn't know.




See, that wasn't so hard, we're making progress!


What was supposed to be hard? What progress? Are you saying I admitted to something that I first wasn't?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Right, if you feel that way, why did you start arguing with me, I wasn't responding to you, you responded to me, what does that make you?


Hey, every post is open slather, It's nice we can discuss these things.



Like I said before, if MMN had just answered my question, or admitted that his thread is based purely on opinion, the argument would be over.


Who's arguing?

We're all mature people discussing a not so mature person (Icke).



That's what you guys keep repeating.

He hasn't answered at all. Please direct me to his answer, or direct me to the part of the OP that answers my question.


What was the question again??



If you do, I will shut up, but you can't.


See above.



Then I don't know why you have a problem with me asking the OP to back up his claims.


I don't, I just had an issue with the 99.9999999% comment, the rest is just friendly banter between mature people.




Right, so I could call you a *!#$%@&^% and get away with it because it is just an observation.


Calling me a gentleman and a scholar doesn't need to the expletive thingies.



Calling someone a "mad tin hatter" is Ad Hominum Chad. But whatever, do as you like.


Some would take it as a compliment, you know a term of endearment.



What a random statement, I don't see how it applies.


No, this is a random statement:

Frogs are friendlier when you feed them potato and eggs.



Are you deliberately spreading lies about me, you are misrepresenting me, this was my premise:




see alot of "resident experts", "hardcore debunkers" and "fundamentalist skeptics" post in a way that makes me wonder if they believe in any of the conspiracy theories here on ATS.





There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, we need it, but in the end, ATS is a CONSPIRACY site, and if you don't believe in any of the theories presented on this site, what are you doing here?


Really pathetic how you have to drag this into it, and twist it to attack my character, really really pathetic Chad. Desperate are we?


Actually my quick summary covers it quite well, so no I'm not lying.

I just elaborated on your above quoted comment:

and if you don't believe in any of the theories presented on this site, what are you doing here?

See I have a problem with people who try to throw their weight around, trying to dictate who should and shouldn't post here.



More baseless attacks, did you see me posting in such threads, did I make any claims about that no. You are just making stuff up now.


You are touchy!

Let's call it sarcastic speculation.



That's cool, it means you have no other way of dealing with me. This says more about you than me Chad.


Dealing with you?

Heh, childs play!










Your posts make it clear that you always limit yourself to the "safe" side of a story.


IS THAT AN AD HOM ATTACK???

You big contradictory bully you!

Again, you have no idea of who you're dealing with here.

Since you choose to be so ignorant I'll give you a freebie:

SERCO

Would someone erring on the safe side present such a thread?

Kinda makes YOU the liar, no?





You are doing both, I wouldn't know.


No, I suspect you wouldn't...


You are, obviously perfect AND infallible.



What was supposed to be hard? What progress? Are you saying I admitted to something that I first wasn't?


Yeah, it was a response to the 9/11 comment.

I'm glad you aren't on the fence and are willing to admit this.

It's progress!

Oh look, our time is almost up, we will have to continue this later!




posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Man you guys really feel the need to drag in stuff from outside this thread, don't you, a bit desperate.


It demonstrates you are not interested in honest discussion, willing to say anything to defend Icke.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
What does the above have to do with UFO's? What does that thread have to do with UFO's.


The above comment further demonstrates your willingness to say anything to defend Icke. You deny the glaring obvious in attempt to continue the argument.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
What did I say in that thread that would link Icke to UFO's?


I did not claim that you did. I showed that you participated in a discussion about David Icke's Moon Matrix; you knew full well David Icke has an entire book dedicated to UFOs and aliens when you claimed Icke never discusses the subject.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
You accuse me of lying, but you're the one doing it. Pathetic.


If you say something, while knowing it is not true, then you have lied. Please show us where I have lied.


No, it's called sarcasm.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
How can you know that from reading comments on the internet?


You have been making similar claims about us, David Icke's critics, based on comments on the internet.



Originally posted by Point of No Return
That's rich, how can I prove a negative?


No, I am asking you to prove your point.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
It's just a simple fact that one cannot judge peoples lives from reading their comments on an internet board.


One most certainly can.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
You guys are making the claims about these people, you need to back up your claims, it's normal practice here on ATS.


Then please, back up your claims.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
I'm asking for evidence to back up the claims in the OP, wich I have every right to, you are the one turning this arouind on me.

The OP needs to back up his claims, but refuses. I'm not making any claims, I'm asking for evidence. Don't twist things.


Nothing has been twisted. The OP has answered the questions and backed up his claims. You have refused to accept this, engaging in lies and purposeful obtuseness to continue the argument.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
I don't believe there is a group of people that follow Icke exclusively and with all their attention.

It's just random people that listen to him and probably loads of other stuff.

Just because you read the comments of people on Icke threads, doesn't mean they are all the same and part of one group that has allegiance to Icke.


I said he had believers and followers. You are the one who is denying there is anything of the sort, embarrassed by your own devotion to him.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
You say stuff like that when you got nothing better.


There is nothing better; it is best to point out the logical fallacies and move on, rather than engage them and allow the conversation to be derailed, which is what you desire.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
You are the one that brought up the "threat to democracy", I just expanded on that.


No, it was not an "expansion" but an attempt to derail. Your purpose here has not been to discuss Icke, rather everything-but-Icke.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The OP points out a major point here and is well grounded and did not have to make up nothing here.

In my tiny little opinion its odd someone(ICKEY) would say pedophiles and satanist have "JOINED FORCES"?

Im more use to Richard Hoagland and major head games(dames).
(I do enjoy Hoagand more).

But they keep it semi sanity in it.

I think Icke added drama like a preacher does at a surmon?(corrupt)..

Theres a lot of good reads from people but there our certain common scence one has to apply.

Like whitley strieber,,he is excellent at his voice and such and even enjoyable to listen to but has no porof.



Not the best example but Maybe/the OP was throwing a heads up and his opinion which has a lot of credibilty to it.

Another example could be like Thomas Bacardi who thinks he is a crypto expert but lies how he captured bigfoot afew times yets get big donations to this day??

The OP gave a good heads up!

It is quite a 360 of drama when one has to add pedo's and devil satanist have joined forces.

Throwing a heads up is good!

Sorry if Im outta touch on my reply.

K



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





Hey, every post is open slather, It's nice we can discuss these things.


Why are you whining that I'm only arguing for the sake of arguing then?

And why would you respond to me about a minor issue, if you feel that way about me?




Who's arguing?


You said I was. You keep twisting what I said and taking it out of context.




What was the question again??


That's interesting, you don't know what my question was, but you can say this:




I think it's more that the OP hasn't answered a question to your satisfaction.


How would you know if you don't even know my question?




I don't,


You don't, are you sure? If you don't have a problem with me asking the OP questions, why say this:




I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.





Actually my quick summary covers it quite well, so no I'm not lying. I just elaborated on your above quoted comment: and if you don't believe in any of the theories presented on this site, what are you doing here?


This is what you said:




So basically, if these people don't think the same way you do, you don't trust their motives.


That's not what I was saying in my thread. I was asking if these debunkers actually believed in any theory here on ATS.

I just think it's strange to visit a conspiracy site if you already have all the answers.

I made it very clear that healthy skepticism is needed and that I am skeptical about lots of theories.

So, jeah, you took that thread out of it's context, on purpose, to attack me, while I based that thread on a simple question.

You make it look as if it is some sort of proof for alleged bias against skeptics, wich is totally untrue.




See I have a problem with people who try to throw their weight around, trying to dictate who should and shouldn't post here.


That was not what I was doing, my thread was based on a question; is there anything that skeptics do believe in?

I wasn't hurting anybody, nor restricting their speech.

And how would that be different from dictating who people can and can't listen to, like MMN is doing with Icke?








Some would take it as a compliment, you know a term of endearment.


No Chad, it's an obvious Ad Hom. You know what, Lily Allen!




You are touchy! Let's call it sarcastic speculation.


In other words, you admit you are just talking trash and making stuff up to discredit me.




Dealing with you? Heh, childs play!


Ad Hom, cross thread attacks, twisting my words etc, jeah it sure is kindergarten level.




IS THAT AN AD HOM ATTACK???


No, it clearly is not.




SERCO Would someone erring on the safe side present such a thread? Kinda makes YOU the liar, no?


I am a liar, because I didn't know of your thread you posted before I even registered on this site?

Ok.

So, you could dig up one example of how you were outside of the "safe zone", good for you.

Since I registered, every post I've read from you was on the "safe" side.




I'm glad you aren't on the fence and are willing to admit this. It's progress!


BS. It's not progress at all. I've always been willing to admit anything, and like I said, I'm not sure about some theories, about some I am.

And what's wrong with being on the fence, do you want me to go and say that every theory is true?

Such BS you're spewing.





[edit on 5-7-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 





It demonstrates you are not interested in honest discussion, willing to say anything to defend Icke.


Not my thread that Chad posted, nor my comments in the other thread you posted are demonstrating that.

I asked you in my last post to show how my comment in that thread had anything to with the connection Icke/UFO's but I guess you won't answer.

It has absolutely nothing to do with it.




Yet four days before, you posted in a discussion about David Icke's new book Moon Matrix, where he claims the moon is an artificial construct built by aliens to control us. You knowingly engage in lies to defend Icke.


Total hogwash. If you accuse me, please show how that thread connects Icke with UFO's, and how I was telling lies to defend Icke.

Please show it to me and all.

You're not going to, because you are the one that's lying here.

Pathetic.




The above comment further demonstrates your willingness to say anything to defend Icke. You deny the glaring obvious in attempt to continue the argument.


If it's so obvious, please explain your statement.

What does that thread have to do with UFO's?

Every time you guys say that it's so obvious, you seem unable to actually post the "obvious" information.




I did not claim that you did. I showed that you participated in a discussion about David Icke's Moon Matrix; you knew full well David Icke has an entire book dedicated to UFOs and aliens when you claimed Icke never discusses the subject.


This is all you do, speculating. that's a bold statement.

First of I responded to that thread, I didn't read or know of that book, and secondly, where were UFO's mentioned in that thread, please show me.




You have been making similar claims about us, David Icke's critics, based on comments on the internet.


Have I? Have I been making statements about the quality of your lives, about how something went wrong in your lives, and more of that BS you're puilling from your behind.

I don't think so.

Again, your statements were pure speculation, without any basis in the real world.

You are making suff up again.




No, I am asking you to prove your point.


That's funny, cause I wasn't making a point. I was asking the OP a question about the claims in his OP.

Again, the OP is suppoed to back up his OP with evidence. I simply asked him how he got to his conclusion. He refuses to answer.

Now you are asking me for proof. Proof for what? I wasn't making any claims.

Just goes to show what your intentions are.




One most certainly can.


You can make detailed descriptions of people lives, based on comments left on an Icke thread.



Are you taking yourself seriously?

You're full of it man.




Then please, back up your claims.


Again, what claims?




Nothing has been twisted. The OP has answered the questions and backed up his claims. You have refused to accept this, engaging in lies and purposeful obtuseness to continue the argument.


This is getting absurd. I have asked it for about six times now. I didn't see my questions answered in the OP, not by the OP or any other poster later in the thread.

I have asked for at least six times if someone could direct me to these answers or post them for me.

You keep saying I'm not listening, but all refuse to provide the answer, because you don't have the answer, because the thread is pure speculation and opinion.




I said he had believers and followers. You are the one who is denying there is anything of the sort, embarrassed by your own devotion to him.


Oh please, I'm saying there is no prototype Icke follower or Icke "sect', just all random, non-connected people that happen to listen to his work and drop a comment on a Icke thread.

You read these comments and put them all in group that is supposedly following Icke.




There is nothing better; it is best to point out the logical fallacies and move on, rather than engage them and allow the conversation to be derailed, which is what you desire.


Jeah, nothing better to say.




No, it was not an "expansion" but an attempt to derail. Your purpose here has not been to discuss Icke, rather everything-but-Icke.


Whatever, you brought up the "democracy" thing, when I pointed out it was BS, it suddenly was off topic. Stick it!

I respond to the topic of your comment, and that is derailing somehow?

It's funny, I responded to this thread with a 100% on topic question, regarding claims in the OP.

How can you imply that my focus was not on topic, it's clearly a lie.





[edit on 5-7-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 




I'm saying there is no prototype Icke follower or Icke "sect', just all random, non-connected people that happen to listen to his work and drop a comment on a Icke thread.


So I take it you haven't visited D.Ickes forums then?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Little_Kona
 


Little Kona…..



The OP points out a major point here and is well grounded and did not have to make up nothing here.


Thank you Little Kona!




In my tiny little opinion


Far from being your ”tiny little opinion”, you should consider your opinion as highly valued!



its odd someone(ICKEY) would say pedophiles and satanist have "JOINED FORCES"?


I don’t think it’s ”odd” because Icke’s track record is that of a selfish man who does not care how much he damages the people he cons with his fantasies, the people he targets with his vile fantasies & Ufology more broadly.



Im more use to Richard Hoagland and major head games(dames).


Be careful…..you might do yourself a mischief if you listen to too much Hoagland!




(I do enjoy Hoagand more).


Well, I know what you mean despite the fact I think he makes everything up. But I do agree…..he can be entertaining to listen to.



But they keep it semi sanity in it.


I understand your meaning…..Icke’s fantasies descend into the nightmarish thoughts of someone like Hieronymus Bosch.



I think Icke added drama like a preacher does at a surmon?(corrupt)..


Well expressed!




Theres a lot of good reads from people but there our certain common scence one has to apply.


Again I agree…..Icke lacks any measure of common sense or perspective.



Like whitley strieber,,he is excellent at his voice and such and even enjoyable to listen to but has no porof.


And…..they both have blonde hair! Maybe they’re cousins!




Another example could be like Thomas Bacardi who thinks he is a crypto expert but lies how he captured bigfoot afew times yets get big donations to this day??


What a great example! Icke’s fantasies are as credible as that hairy suit in that freezer!



The OP gave a good heads up!


Thank you…..it was my great pleasure to do this for everybody.



It is quite a 360 of drama when one has to add pedo's and devil satanist have joined forces.


Well…..back to my ”Icke’s Big Omelet of Conspiracies!”



Throwing a heads up is good!


Again…..I’m very glad to be able to help everybody like this!




Sorry if Im outta touch on my reply.


You are not out of touch at all!


Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 




So basically MMN is on the same level as Icke, the one he's fighting against?

I'm sorry, that's not how it works here on ATS


How does it work on ATS?



That's what you guys keep repeating, but you can't give any example of case where this clearly happened.

Do you really want us to go through his entire book and post quotes for all his baseless clamis? Why don't you read one of his books and then come back with us with something besides "you guys are wrong". If you want to debate a topic thats fine but you should be familiar with the topic so you can say something besides "you guys are wrong".



That's also what you keep saying, I honestly haven't seen my questions answered.
Please post it for me, or direct me to it and I will shut up, how hard can it be?


How hard can it be to read the thread instead of just spamming the same stuff over and over?



I disagree with the premise, I have every right to debate it, but the OP refuses to.
I'll be pointing that out as long as I like.


In a debate there is usually an affirmative and a negative, and the two sides will debate over something. However just asking one question over and over is not a debate. Instead of actually adressing the topic you just keep asking the same thing of the OP over and over. If you are convinced that the premisse of the OP is wrong why not post why it is wrong instead of just spamming the same thing over and over.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The most recent episode of the Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast is all about our good friend David Icke.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Hi community.

The OP gave a good heads up Im saying again.


I knda gave examples of Richard,Whitley,,,,,,

Yes,,they may be full of some BS but theres a line that gets crossed,,thats when the red flag pops up..

If large Satanist groups are joing forces with (an underground??)pedophile clan thats world wide he should be helping or working withe FBI,CIA,KGB and other intelligence agencies instead of selling 30 dollar tickets and making DVD or CD's...

I could make a thread on the liar man Tom biscradi is a liar and a con.

Id probly get replies like "at least he is out in the field doing the dirty work""what are you doing besides critisizing him"

Or "the guy could piss off the pope and he is sincere,,he gets to the bottom of things even he;s hoodwinked"


Well,,The OP gave a good heads up!


If you want to butytickets to his seminars or DVD's to a dead end alley of a con game I cant stop you.

I also want to point out this!
Now ,,for those who beleive him/or give him the benefit of the doubt?
What if there is no big empire of pedo's and satanist joing forces?

I find it discusting he ,or how con men/woman play the game to make money!

Sorry to get ruff here,?

I think its ok to be a tad ruff on one's opinions than at others.

K



















[edit on 6-7-2010 by Little_Kona]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Icke isn't just a threat to his followers to Ufology, but democracy itself. Democracy is predicated on the idea that people are free to choose their own destiny. Icke tells people the opposite.


Talk about hyperbole. David Icke is a threat to democracy?


Let us respect our own right to be unique and to express that
uniqueness; let us respect the right of others to express their
uniqueness, free from ridicule or condemnation; and let us
never seek to impose what we believe on anyone else. That
simple philosophy will transform your life and life on this
planet.


(quote from p.207 I am Me I am Free)

Doesn't sound like he's telling anyone they're not free to choose their own destiny to me.

I've still to hear a cogent argument as to how Icke can damage Ufology. What is this damage that is occurring? Who is it occurring to? Or is it just the nebulous concept of 'ufology in general' that is being damaged?

Most people, if they have heard of Icke at all, think he is a raving madman. The reason I believe he has never been sued by any of the people he has defamed is I think that there is an expectation in UK law that the person's reputation has to have been damaged in the eyes of right-minded people by the libel or slander. It would be a tough job for any prosecution lawyer to argue that right minded people believe what David Icke says. Indeed it 's almost a litmus test - if you believe in Icke's theories then by definition you can't be right-minded. (That's how I think it would play out anyway).

So is it being suggested that people who would otherwise be of sober disposition and careful thinkers and who would otherwise treat the subject of Ufology with respect and balance are suddenly going to dismiss the entire subject out of hand because they stumbled upon Icke's website and read that the Scottish Elite are involved in a paedophilia scandal? Surely not.

And the kind of person who takes these claims at face value are probably not going to be the sort of people to bring anything constructive to the table anyway. If Icke didn't exist they would just find some other guru to follow.

If we're talking about Ufology not being treated as a serious scientific subject then you can't lay that at Icke's door. The subject's history is replete with all manner of hoaxers, con men and loonies not to mention the fact that the subject has been manipulated by the authorities by encouraging it as a cover story for secret test flights while simultaneously downplaying anything that might suggest a real alien presence and thus a have destabilising effect on the authority of the government.

Saying 'yes but Icke's not helping the cause' is hardly a strong argument. The idea that Ufology might conceivably have a chance to be treated seriously if Icke stopped discussing his theories (and if all the other frauds and charlatans did likewise) is possible but more than likely wishful thinking. First of all you'd have to convince all those scientists to look at all the evidence. Something they've historically been loathe to do mainly because most of it is witness testimony which as we all know is inadmissible evidence.

If that is how Icke is damaging ufology then it seems like a pretty weak sort of damage to me.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 




Let us respect our own right to be unique and to express that
uniqueness; let us respect the right of others to express their
uniqueness, free from ridicule or condemnation; and let us
never seek to impose what we believe on anyone else. That
simple philosophy will transform your life and life on this
planet.


So people in government should (according to D.icke) be able to go about their lives without ridicule or condemnation by being branded as reptilian satanist pedophiles just because D.icke says so?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Noted, the term hypocrite now added to the D.Icke list of offenses



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Yeah im just waiting for someone to come in and say "But its different because..."



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Talk about hyperbole. David Icke is a threat to democracy?


Not hyperbole in the least. Icke's philosophy is certainly a threat to democracy; while alone he does not endanger it, added with other demagogues that preach self-disenfranchisement, the danger becomes obvious.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Doesn't sound like he's telling anyone they're not free to choose their own destiny to me.


The above quote may be what Icke says but it is not what he means. What Icke tells people is that they have no control over their lives; the Elite are in control. He tells them that participating in our democracy is pointless; the Elite are in control.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
I've still to hear a cogent argument as to how Icke can damage Ufology.


This has been presented, but you have ignored it.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Most people, if they have heard of Icke at all, think he is a raving madman.


You have answered your own question.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
So is it being suggested that people who would otherwise be of sober disposition and careful thinkers and who would otherwise treat the subject of Ufology with respect and balance are suddenly going to dismiss the entire subject out of hand because they stumbled upon Icke's website and read that the Scottish Elite are involved in a paedophilia scandal? Surely not.


Guilt-by-association is a powerful thing.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
And the kind of person who takes these claims at face value are probably not going to be the sort of people to bring anything constructive to the table anyway. If Icke didn't exist they would just find some other guru to follow.


You are right there; Icke fulfills a demand, he does not create it. However, his presence (and his followers) is damaging.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
If we're talking about Ufology not being treated as a serious scientific subject then you can't lay that at Icke's door.


Right again. Icke has not damaged it by himself; he found the subject that way.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
First of all you'd have to convince all those scientists to look at all the evidence. Something they've historically been loathe to do mainly because most of it is witness testimony which as we all know is inadmissible evidence.


One of the steps, one, to bring the subject any sort of respectability is marginalizing people like Icke.

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of this thread. Icke is a problem, not the problem of UFO research.


[edit on 6-7-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 




Let us respect our own right to be unique and to express that
uniqueness; let us respect the right of others to express their
uniqueness, free from ridicule or condemnation; and let us
never seek to impose what we believe on anyone else. That
simple philosophy will transform your life and life on this
planet.


So people in government should (according to D.icke) be able to go about their lives without ridicule or condemnation by being branded as reptilian satanist pedophiles just because D.icke says so?


You're putting words in my mouth. The quote was to counter the claim that Icke says people shouldn't be free to choose their own destiny.

Edit: I misread your post so ignore the previous paragraph. If they are not reptilian satanist pedophiles then yes they should be free from that accusation, of course. Icke thinks he has proved otherwise though so I don't think his concept of freedom includes allowing paedophiles to continue doing what they're (supposedly) doing, so I don't think you can say that is hypocritical. Again it boils down to whether you think Icke is intentionally deceiving people or whether he genuinely believes the things he says.

All of this has nothing to do with Ufology though.

[edit on 7/7/2010 by MarrsAttax]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex


Not hyperbole in the least. Icke's philosophy is certainly a threat to democracy; while alone he does not endanger it, added with other demagogues that preach self-disenfranchisement, the danger becomes obvious.


Your stance has softened from 'Icke is a danger to Democracy itself' to 'Icke's philosophy along with other nameless demagogues who may or may not exist'. I think hyperbole was a fair assessment of your original claim.



The above quote may be what Icke says but it is not what he means.


Did you really just say that? Oh dear.


What Icke tells people is that they have no control over their lives; the Elite are in control. He tells them that participating in our democracy is pointless; the Elite are in control.


Straw man. Icke doesn't tell people they have no control over their lives. In fact he tells them the exact opposite (the quote I gave but one example). His highlighting of the supposed level of control of the elites is in order that by becoming aware of it people can break free from it. At least that's how I read it. Ah but of course it's not what the man says but what he means.





Originally posted by MarrsAttax
I've still to hear a cogent argument as to how Icke can damage Ufology.


This has been presented, but you have ignored it.


I've read arguments but no cogent ones. I can reduce the arguments to the following propositions:

a) Icke is either mad or a liar

b) Icke sometimes discusses UFOs

c) Some people believe what Icke says

d) Some people on the internet associate Icke with UFOS


Therefore

e) Icke damages Ufology


However, there has yet to be any evidence presented of how a,b,c and d lead to e. Nor has their been any evidence presented of this 'damage' occurring.


You have answered your own question.


I asked three questions. What is this damage that is occurring? Who is it occurring to? Or is it just the nebulous concept of 'ufology in general' that is being damaged?

Which one did I answer? Let's take them in sequence.


Q: What is the damage that is occurring?

A: Most people, if they have heard of Icke at all, think he is a raving madman.

That doesn't make much sense. Ok next one.

Q: Who is it occurring to?

A: Most people, if they have heard of Icke at all, think he is a raving madman.

No, can't be that one. Last one.

Q: Is it just the nebulous concept of 'ufology in general' that is being damaged?

A: Most people, if they have heard of Icke at all, think he is a raving madman.

Well, that's a bit of a non-sequiter as well but if I get you right you seem to be implying that most people thinking Icke is a raving madman damages Ufology?

Proposition: Most people think Icke is a raving madman.

Conclusion: Icke damages Ufology.

Not sure I follow the logic there.



Guilt-by-association is a powerful thing.


And you know better than anyone it is a logical fallacy.





Originally posted by MarrsAttax
And the kind of person who takes these claims at face value are probably not going to be the sort of people to bring anything constructive to the table anyway. If Icke didn't exist they would just find some other guru to follow.


You are right there; Icke fulfills a demand, he does not create it. However, his presence (and his followers) is damaging.


How? Can anyone demonstrate to me what would be different about Ufology should Icke suddenly pack up and stop producing his material? I will make the supposition that in fact very little, if anything would change. Please demonstrate the damage, don't just state it is happening.




Originally posted by MarrsAttax
If we're talking about Ufology not being treated as a serious scientific subject then you can't lay that at Icke's door.


Right again. Icke has not damaged it by himself; he found the subject that way.



That is the crux of my argument. How can he damage something that's already damaged? Would his absence repair this damage and what is the damage we are talking about anyway?


One of the steps, one, to bring the subject any sort of respectability is marginalizing people like Icke.

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of this thread. Icke is a problem, not the problem of UFO research.


The thread is titled 'David Icke...Ufology's Worst Ambassador'.

Maybe it should be retitled

'David Icke...one of the problems of Ufology, not by himself you understand'.

I understand the point of thread well enough. It's Icke bashing pure and simple. And rather than simply demonstrating how his facts are wrong it tries to make the nebulous and undemonstrated claim that Icke is 'damaging' ufology (and democracy
).

It's a really weak premise for a thread (I'm sorry MMN I usually enjoy your stuff).






top topics



 
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join