reply to post by DaveStinger
Maybe it is really true that events are being faked and more and more people are catching on.
Or people are trying to perpetuate hoaxes, myths, lies in a bid for internet stardom. If you compare how many faked events vs. how many online hoaxes
there are, what do you think will be higher, the number of hoaxes or the number of faked events.
This of course suggests that a hoax, is not a faked event. Technically, a faked event is a hoax. But I think we can conclude you are speaking of
"false flags" or staged events by government et al.
So the question is, are there more online hoaxes than there are faked events?
Which should you be more weary of?
Basically you wrote a rant against a group of people with a dissenting opinion.
People that use circular logic are not simply, "a group of people with dissenting opinion". There are many people on this forum that at times
disagree with one another, or disagree with the "official story" etc. Someone, or a group of people that are using circular logic, are unwilling to
look at an event or story objectively, and are merely trying to push their point of view no matter what.
Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins
with what he or she is trying to end up with".
This happens a lot on this forum to be honest. It's like saying "I saw an alien so how can I prove it is one."
This leads the OPs completely disregarding any information that contradicts their already determined conclusion, meanwhile using any corroborating
information as "evidence" no matter how flimsy it might be, or even if it has been previously shown to be a lie, or if it has not gone under any
scrutiny at all.
Recently, I saw pictures being used as "evidence". They were cropped. When looking at the full, unedited picture, it shows that it doesn't support
the position of the person using it as "evidence". Therefore, in using this picture to support their position, they chose to be willfully ignorant,
or downright deceitful.
So then I wonder, how are you qualified to pass judgement on those who claim "false flag"or "staged event", based on the inconsistencies in the
mainstream media, if you admittedly, don't know what is really going on in said media?
I do not know what is going on.
Person B: You do not know what is going on, neither do I (because we have the same information base) but, I know what is going on!
So I would say Heffcide is fine to pass judgement when or if he and everyone in the public, does not have information, yet someone claims to. Their
information being no different, except, they have made a conclusion with the same foundation everyone else has.
Essentially, 10 people are waiting for a test in which to pass, you must get 75% of the answers right. It's a muliple choice test. The teacher asks
the class, can any of you give me the answer to the test.
Student 1 raises their hand: "No ma'am, you haven't given us the test yet.
Student 2 whispers to student 3: "Psst, I have the answers to the test."
Student 3 says: "The test has not even been made yet, the teacher is doing it now."
Student 2: Tells everyone in the class the answers to the test.
Student 3: Let's say this student is Heff, he passes judgement on student 2, writes a rant thread about it on the forum.
Student 4-10: They take the answers from student 2.
In the end, the only one's who have a chance of passing the test are student 1 and 3.
The laws governing accidentally picking the answers out will not give the students enough right answers to pass the test. Sure they may get one or
two right, but not enough to pass. The behaviour of students 4-10 and of #2 is absolutely enough for someone to pass judgement on. As they all could
have waited for the test to arrive, and then concentrated on the answers when it did.
Another metaphor one could add in here, is how hard people studied for the test. Let's say Student 2 beforehand was handing out "cheat sheets"...
The others did the hard research and actually spent time in various books, using different references and sources.
#2's cheat sheet was colourful and made wild claims, it played into people's fears and insecurities. People believed the sheets wholeheartedly. Too
bad that did not make them any valid than they actually were.
Facts are what determined how people did on the tests. Facts are what helped people increase their intelligence. Facts are what determines what is
right or wrong.