I'll admit that I do believe in the Illuminati even due to the lack of evidence of their existance and it all comes down to what people choose
to believe in
No, it doesn't. You are speaking like that's the only choice - like there's no such thing as
- taking things as possibilities
- researching until finding enough convincing evidence and arguments
- deducting and reasoning until some form of conclusion can be reasonably reached
- and so on
Not everyone believes. Thus, they choose to do and apply other methods of information processing, without resorting to the white stick of belief.
Belief is for the blind. They can't see for themselves, so they need to lean on something, whether it's sturdy or not. They can't find their own way,
so they choose belief so they won't have to go in circles - their direction may be wrong, but at least they are progressing in their travel. It's
fine, if you can't find the truth, if you are incapable of discerning the truth from the lies, if you cannot reason and process things based on what
you know with relative certainty and then build and deduce from there. Sure, belief is probably a good option for such people.
But please don't speak for others, when you say things like "it ALL comes down to what you choose to believe", because 'believe it or not', there are
people who do not believe. Anything. Everything is either processed, taken into possibility, or having faith on - but no believing.
You may believe if you want, but don't generalize your blindness to others - who may actually see, whether you can 'believe' this or not.
"The increasingly eccentric duo, who are wanted in California for allegedly skipping out on a hefty hotel bill and for vandalizing a house they
once owned
Wait - how do you vandalize a house you OWN? I mean, if I break my own shoes apart, have I now vandalized my own shoes? No. Vandalism occurs when
someone ELSE does something unwanted to your property. Not, when YOU do it.
Though that sentence doesn't make it clear whether the house was at the time already owned by someone else, or if they still owned it.. it does raise
some questions.
There are people whose viewpoint is that ownership creates rights (I don't completely agree with this, but I think it' a good rule of thumb in most
scenarios). So if you own the house, you have a perfect right to do anything you want to it (as long as you don't violate other's rights).
Oh and by the way, it's "existence", not "existance". Native english speakers these days do not seem to be able to write their own language correctly.
I guess it's somewhat 'understandable' (not in legalese sense though), because the spoken language is the one we learn first, and english language has
a really weird relationship between how something is written and how something is pronounced. Some other languages do not have this problem - if you
know how something is said, you know how it's written, and vice versa. In those languages, each letter of the alphabet is -always- pronounced exactly
the same, regardless of the word, or other letters in the word. But in english, you change the surrounding letters, and the pronounciation of the
others change also. It's completely messed up.
But it's still possible to write it correctly..
edit on 12-6-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)
