Originally posted by DazDaKing
Well said 'detachedindividual', I agree.
From what I gathered alot of the preppers in America are basing their decisions on the fact that the monetary system may collapse, which is actually
quite a plausible outcome and could potentially cause unbelievable anguish for those who were completely unprepared - physically and mentally.
For this reason, I think its ridiculous to name these people crazy or TERRORISTS?! Thats just MSM making these people bad in the publics eye so their
reasons are overlooked on any logical scale. The preppers may be slightly more paranoid in nature, but there is definitely nothing silly, stupid or
crazy about stocking up supplies and keeping a defense weapon (If I was an American and could legally bear arms then I probably would, just incase for
the worst possible scenarios) and if # actually hits the fan in that manner they will have the last laugh.
edit on 21-12-2012 by DazDaKing
because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-12-2012 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)
The problem I have been seeing all over the world in the last few years boils down to one thing - comprehension of language and meaning and the
changing of definitions because of it.
I'll offer a few examples...
In the UK we've had the whole argument about the rights of the free press. We all agree that the press should be free to report. But the problem is
that everyone has redefined the term "in the public interest".
The press has a right to investigate and report issues that are genuinely in the public interest, such as corruption, abuse of power, criminality and
government failings etc. But the press and government have redefined that to mean "anything that titillates".
Now, the breasts of Kate Middleton or the bum of Prince Harry is deemed to be "in the public interest" when it actually isn't. We have no business
making gossip into "must know" news, it's not in the public interest at all, it's in the interests of gossip.
We have the same thing happening here, with people now redefining what a conspiracy is, what evidence is, what reality is. A Youtube video does not
constitute evidence. A report by Alex Jones does not mean proof.
News broadcasters have echoed this in reporting, combining the rational with the delusional, mainly because we do it all the time.
Seriously, look at the posts and discussions we have on the front page right now, and then consider that a news source might come here to do some
research on the prepper community. They look at threads about movies talking to people, about how 20 little kids murdered in their school "didn't
exist" and how their parents are "actors", and then they look at threads about the illuminate and stories picked up from Alex Jones with absolutely
no basis in reality...
How are they then going to view a reasonable discussion about the potential collapse of the €?
We do it to ourselves. We have redefined evidence and proof to mean anything as long as it supports a theory. There are 101 examples of it here, where
people quote each other as "evidence".
Perhaps if there were not so many people making irrational statements about everything from lizard people to imaginary murder victims the media
wouldn't be laughing at anyone who prepares for the likely and plausible scenarios?
Too much discussion here is based on nothing, and it destroys the credibility of the discussions that are actually based in some form of reality.