Alex Jones: I had a form of psychosis about Sandy Hook

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I skipped it because it was stupid, and frankly, repeating it would make us all dumber.

Calling it stupid isn't an argument. Pretty sure everyone can easily gather that you only skipped over it because you have no argument against it.

Yes, that's between you and your shrink, I don't get involved.

Telling someone that they need a shrink isn't an argument, it's an attempted character assassination.

1) The guy is already an emotional mess.
2) If he beleives conmen like Jones, he's already worse than gullible.
3) Again, I'll repeat - OCCAM'S FUCKING RAZOR

Character assassination, non-argument, and Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle, not the answer to all of life's problems. Simply stating "Occam's razor" instead of explaining why is should apply in the instance that's being discussed is not an argument.

Either one crazy person stole his mommy's guns and killed a bunch of people.

Or thousands of people conspired to stage a drill, realized people took it seriously, and then created a false narrative about a fictional school and fictional victims. This conspiracy would not only involve Federal, State and Local officials, but the entire town of Newtown (Pop 28,000), All of the news networks, including Fox and Talk Radio, and even the NRA!

Oh, you did attempt to explain. That's out of the ordinary for you, and I can see why.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that it's outside the realm of possibility for one individual to go on a shooting spree, however simply accepting that instead of questioning the validity of given information and investigating for yourself is just intellectual laziness and gullibility. You're also massively over-complicating the steps that would need to be taken in order to create that false narrative.

For example, for the borderline video, all they did was make a fake report for the state-run news media, then proceed to record shaky footage of a person firing off blanks in a mostly empty bar. I also want to point out that sheep-dipping is a practice that the Government has been conducting for years, so fake victims, or hell, letting one of their agents shoot real people and then getting an actor to claim that one of them was her child would be incredibly easy. Besides, as I keep mentioning, Operation North Woods was far more complicated than this, and it was an actual plan of action that the Government would have taken, the document is publicly available.

A small nitpick, but you also specifically said crazy person, yet mentally ill people are LESS likely to commit violent crimes, the narrative that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to defend themselves is a red herring.

Furthermore, it wouldn't require the entire town of Newtown, nor "all of the news networks and talk radio", it would only require the state-run media to run with it, then other stations wanting to report on this piece of news, they only need to repeat the information given. Since through Operation Mockingbird, again something the Government has acknowledged, all of the Mainstream media outlets are Government-run. Beyond that, all that's needed are a few fake witnesses, not an entire town.

Also, the absolute EASIEST condition to fulfill is the Government being corrupt. Monopolies are inherently corrupt, and the Government lies to the citizens on a regular basis. You and yours have even been pointing out that Donald Trump lies frequently, so the fact that you're vouching for the Government to be totally pure and innocent is incredibly laughable. Every single politician is well known for lying, for example, again, Operation North Woods would have been kept secret from the citizens, there was the "Iran has Nuclear weapons" narrative, the "Russia" narrative, and those are just what comes to mind immediately. Your faith in in humans that you've never met before likely impresses all kinds of religious people.

Lastly, the NRA is controlled opposition:

Now, since the simplest explanation is usually true, which of those is simpler.

Being simple or not doesn't make something automatically true, it only means your thinking stopped the moment it was easier for you to accept a specific narrative.

NO, I'm here to reduce assholes to greasy smears on the pavement.

You'll have a hard time doing that with text, keyboard warrior.

Which fact is this? Here's the thing, most mass shootings, you have contradictory early reports, that turn out to not be true.

Multiple armed men were sighted at Church Christ, only one was brought before a judge, the others were never mentioned. The shooter's Manifesto was written differently from the post it was attached to, the post being in "Queen's English", the other being in standard english, and the entire thing was filled with points which conflict, as if the post and manifesto were written by different people. You only believe that it wasn't a false flag because you were told it wasn't by the State Media. Even more damning, discussion of the event is being suppressed. I even have a copy of the manifesto, if by some miracle you're interested in information beyond the minimal.

Actually, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut talking about all the people he wants to shoot.

Cliche non-argument. I could do something just as pathetic; "I no want peoplez to haz gunz cuz they iz scawy". Though, ad-homs, cliche non-arguments, and character assassinations don't lead to honest discussion of ideas, just mud flinging. I suppose that's what you're after, though.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass.

Oh look, more mud-flinging. Actually, I have a better understanding of logic than you do.

The foundations of all logic and reason; the Principle of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be a specific thing, and also not that specific thing at the same time. Likewise, something cannot be one thing and also another at the exact same time, when both are mutually exclusive. So long as the Principle of Non-Contradiction holds, the Consistency Principle does as well: If one can find inconsistency in an idea, that idea must be rejected. For example, if one thing and another are mutually exclusive, and a true dichotomy, falsifying the first is all one needs to do to support the second. The consistency principle itself can be supported in this way; “Consistency is preferable” or “consistency is not preferable”. This is a True Dichotomy, one or the other must be true, but both cannot be at once. If one examines this, “Consistency is not preferable” is a consistent principle, but therefor self-contradictory, by the Principle of Non-Contradiction, it then must be rejected, therefor accepting consistency as being preferable. The Consistency Principle then brings one to the Burden of Proof: There are an infinite number of things that any and every individual is not doing at any one time, it’s therefor impossible to justify all of them at once, causing the burden of proof to fall on the active position, rather than the passive position, as the passive position is the position in which nothing is being done.

If you understood logic, you wouldn't be for gun control, since the position is inherently contradictory.

And the true sign of a conspiracy nut... when they start accusing the other nuts of being in on the conspiracy.

Alex Jones' lawyer admits the one thing we all already knew
Alex Jones ‘playing a character,’ says lawyer
'It's performance art': Lawyer for Alex Jones says InfoWars founder is 'playing a character'
No, he was admitted to be a "Performance Artist" in court. Also, calling someone a nut isn't an argument.

Whether or not Jones says dumb shit on purpose to steal morons' money has no bearing on the fact that he truly is a delusional,ignorant, angry little sphincter of a human.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, I skipped it because it was stupid, and frankly, repeating it would make us all dumber.

Calling it stupid isn't an argument. Pretty sure everyone can easily gather that you only skipped over it because you have no argument against it.

Yes, that's between you and your shrink, I don't get involved.

Telling someone that they need a shrink isn't an argument, it's an attempted character assassination.

1) The guy is already an emotional mess.
2) If he beleives conmen like Jones, he's already worse than gullible.
3) Again, I'll repeat - OCCAM'S FUCKING RAZOR

Character assassination, non-argument, and Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle, not the answer to all of life's problems. Simply stating "Occam's razor" instead of explaining why is should apply in the instance that's being discussed is not an argument.

Either one crazy person stole his mommy's guns and killed a bunch of people.

Or thousands of people conspired to stage a drill, realized people took it seriously, and then created a false narrative about a fictional school and fictional victims. This conspiracy would not only involve Federal, State and Local officials, but the entire town of Newtown (Pop 28,000), All of the news networks, including Fox and Talk Radio, and even the NRA!

Oh, you did attempt to explain. That's out of the ordinary for you, and I can see why.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that it's outside the realm of possibility for one individual to go on a shooting spree, however simply accepting that instead of questioning the validity of given information and investigating for yourself is just intellectual laziness and gullibility. You're also massively over-complicating the steps that would need to be taken in order to create that false narrative.

For example, for the borderline video, all they did was make a fake report for the state-run news media, then proceed to record shaky footage of a person firing off blanks in a mostly empty bar. I also want to point out that sheep-dipping is a practice that the Government has been conducting for years, so fake victims, or hell, letting one of their agents shoot real people and then getting an actor to claim that one of them was her child would be incredibly easy. Besides, as I keep mentioning, Operation North Woods was far more complicated than this, and it was an actual plan of action that the Government would have taken, the document is publicly available.

A small nitpick, but you also specifically said crazy person, yet mentally ill people are LESS likely to commit violent crimes, the narrative that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to defend themselves is a red herring.

Furthermore, it wouldn't require the entire town of Newtown, nor "all of the news networks and talk radio", it would only require the state-run media to run with it, then other stations wanting to report on this piece of news, they only need to repeat the information given. Since through Operation Mockingbird, again something the Government has acknowledged, all of the Mainstream media outlets are Government-run. Beyond that, all that's needed are a few fake witnesses, not an entire town.

Also, the absolute EASIEST condition to fulfill is the Government being corrupt. Monopolies are inherently corrupt, and the Government lies to the citizens on a regular basis. You and yours have even been pointing out that Donald Trump lies frequently, so the fact that you're vouching for the Government to be totally pure and innocent is incredibly laughable. Every single politician is well known for lying, for example, again, Operation North Woods would have been kept secret from the citizens, there was the "Iran has Nuclear weapons" narrative, the "Russia" narrative, and those are just what comes to mind immediately. Your faith in in humans that you've never met before likely impresses all kinds of religious people.

Lastly, the NRA is controlled opposition:

Now, since the simplest explanation is usually true, which of those is simpler.

Being simple or not doesn't make something automatically true, it only means your thinking stopped the moment it was easier for you to accept a specific narrative.

NO, I'm here to reduce assholes to greasy smears on the pavement.

You'll have a hard time doing that with text, keyboard warrior.

Which fact is this? Here's the thing, most mass shootings, you have contradictory early reports, that turn out to not be true.

Multiple armed men were sighted at Church Christ, only one was brought before a judge, the others were never mentioned. The shooter's Manifesto was written differently from the post it was attached to, the post being in "Queen's English", the other being in standard english, and the entire thing was filled with points which conflict, as if the post and manifesto were written by different people. You only believe that it wasn't a false flag because you were told it wasn't by the State Media. Even more damning, discussion of the event is being suppressed. I even have a copy of the manifesto, if by some miracle you're interested in information beyond the minimal.

Actually, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut talking about all the people he wants to shoot.

Cliche non-argument. I could do something just as pathetic; "I no want peoplez to haz gunz cuz they iz scawy". Though, ad-homs, cliche non-arguments, and character assassinations don't lead to honest discussion of ideas, just mud flinging. I suppose that's what you're after, though.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass.

Oh look, more mud-flinging. Actually, I have a better understanding of logic than you do.

The foundations of all logic and reason; the Principle of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be a specific thing, and also not that specific thing at the same time. Likewise, something cannot be one thing and also another at the exact same time, when both are mutually exclusive. So long as the Principle of Non-Contradiction holds, the Consistency Principle does as well: If one can find inconsistency in an idea, that idea must be rejected. For example, if one thing and another are mutually exclusive, and a true dichotomy, falsifying the first is all one needs to do to support the second. The consistency principle itself can be supported in this way; “Consistency is preferable” or “consistency is not preferable”. This is a True Dichotomy, one or the other must be true, but both cannot be at once. If one examines this, “Consistency is not preferable” is a consistent principle, but therefor self-contradictory, by the Principle of Non-Contradiction, it then must be rejected, therefor accepting consistency as being preferable. The Consistency Principle then brings one to the Burden of Proof: There are an infinite number of things that any and every individual is not doing at any one time, it’s therefor impossible to justify all of them at once, causing the burden of proof to fall on the active position, rather than the passive position, as the passive position is the position in which nothing is being done.

If you understood logic, you wouldn't be for gun control, since the position is inherently contradictory.

And the true sign of a conspiracy nut... when they start accusing the other nuts of being in on the conspiracy.

Alex Jones' lawyer admits the one thing we all already knew
Alex Jones ‘playing a character,’ says lawyer
'It's performance art': Lawyer for Alex Jones says InfoWars founder is 'playing a character'
No, he was admitted to be a "Performance Artist" in court. Also, calling someone a nut isn't an argument.

Whether or not Jones says dumb shit on purpose to steal morons' money has no bearing on the fact that he truly is a delusional,ignorant, angry little sphincter of a human.

I never claimed he wasn't, I'm not defending Alex Jones or anything he says. Joe was claiming that I'm accusing "other nuts" of being in on the "conspiracy", I'm pointing out that he already admitted to being a performance artist playing a character. I'm only defending Dale, because Joe wasn't making arguments, just making personal attacks and character assassinations.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I skipped it because it was stupid, and frankly, repeating it would make us all dumber.

Calling it stupid isn't an argument. Pretty sure everyone can easily gather that you only skipped over it because you have no argument against it.

Yes, that's between you and your shrink, I don't get involved.

Telling someone that they need a shrink isn't an argument, it's an attempted character assassination.

1) The guy is already an emotional mess.
2) If he beleives conmen like Jones, he's already worse than gullible.
3) Again, I'll repeat - OCCAM'S FUCKING RAZOR

Character assassination, non-argument, and Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle, not the answer to all of life's problems. Simply stating "Occam's razor" instead of explaining why is should apply in the instance that's being discussed is not an argument.

Either one crazy person stole his mommy's guns and killed a bunch of people.

Or thousands of people conspired to stage a drill, realized people took it seriously, and then created a false narrative about a fictional school and fictional victims. This conspiracy would not only involve Federal, State and Local officials, but the entire town of Newtown (Pop 28,000), All of the news networks, including Fox and Talk Radio, and even the NRA!

Oh, you did attempt to explain. That's out of the ordinary for you, and I can see why.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that it's outside the realm of possibility for one individual to go on a shooting spree, however simply accepting that instead of questioning the validity of given information and investigating for yourself is just intellectual laziness and gullibility. You're also massively over-complicating the steps that would need to be taken in order to create that false narrative.

For example, for the borderline video, all they did was make a fake report for the state-run news media, then proceed to record shaky footage of a person firing off blanks in a mostly empty bar. I also want to point out that sheep-dipping is a practice that the Government has been conducting for years, so fake victims, or hell, letting one of their agents shoot real people and then getting an actor to claim that one of them was her child would be incredibly easy. Besides, as I keep mentioning, Operation North Woods was far more complicated than this, and it was an actual plan of action that the Government would have taken, the document is publicly available.

A small nitpick, but you also specifically said crazy person, yet mentally ill people are LESS likely to commit violent crimes, the narrative that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to defend themselves is a red herring.

Furthermore, it wouldn't require the entire town of Newtown, nor "all of the news networks and talk radio", it would only require the state-run media to run with it, then other stations wanting to report on this piece of news, they only need to repeat the information given. Since through Operation Mockingbird, again something the Government has acknowledged, all of the Mainstream media outlets are Government-run. Beyond that, all that's needed are a few fake witnesses, not an entire town.

Also, the absolute EASIEST condition to fulfill is the Government being corrupt. Monopolies are inherently corrupt, and the Government lies to the citizens on a regular basis. You and yours have even been pointing out that Donald Trump lies frequently, so the fact that you're vouching for the Government to be totally pure and innocent is incredibly laughable. Every single politician is well known for lying, for example, again, Operation North Woods would have been kept secret from the citizens, there was the "Iran has Nuclear weapons" narrative, the "Russia" narrative, and those are just what comes to mind immediately. Your faith in in humans that you've never met before likely impresses all kinds of religious people.

Lastly, the NRA is controlled opposition:

Now, since the simplest explanation is usually true, which of those is simpler.

Being simple or not doesn't make something automatically true, it only means your thinking stopped the moment it was easier for you to accept a specific narrative.

NO, I'm here to reduce assholes to greasy smears on the pavement.

You'll have a hard time doing that with text, keyboard warrior.

Which fact is this? Here's the thing, most mass shootings, you have contradictory early reports, that turn out to not be true.

Multiple armed men were sighted at Church Christ, only one was brought before a judge, the others were never mentioned. The shooter's Manifesto was written differently from the post it was attached to, the post being in "Queen's English", the other being in standard english, and the entire thing was filled with points which conflict, as if the post and manifesto were written by different people. You only believe that it wasn't a false flag because you were told it wasn't by the State Media. Even more damning, discussion of the event is being suppressed. I even have a copy of the manifesto, if by some miracle you're interested in information beyond the minimal.

Actually, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut talking about all the people he wants to shoot.

Cliche non-argument. I could do something just as pathetic; "I no want peoplez to haz gunz cuz they iz scawy". Though, ad-homs, cliche non-arguments, and character assassinations don't lead to honest discussion of ideas, just mud flinging. I suppose that's what you're after, though.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass.

Oh look, more mud-flinging. Actually, I have a better understanding of logic than you do.

The foundations of all logic and reason; the Principle of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be a specific thing, and also not that specific thing at the same time. Likewise, something cannot be one thing and also another at the exact same time, when both are mutually exclusive. So long as the Principle of Non-Contradiction holds, the Consistency Principle does as well: If one can find inconsistency in an idea, that idea must be rejected. For example, if one thing and another are mutually exclusive, and a true dichotomy, falsifying the first is all one needs to do to support the second. The consistency principle itself can be supported in this way; “Consistency is preferable” or “consistency is not preferable”. This is a True Dichotomy, one or the other must be true, but both cannot be at once. If one examines this, “Consistency is not preferable” is a consistent principle, but therefor self-contradictory, by the Principle of Non-Contradiction, it then must be rejected, therefor accepting consistency as being preferable. The Consistency Principle then brings one to the Burden of Proof: There are an infinite number of things that any and every individual is not doing at any one time, it’s therefor impossible to justify all of them at once, causing the burden of proof to fall on the active position, rather than the passive position, as the passive position is the position in which nothing is being done.

If you understood logic, you wouldn't be for gun control, since the position is inherently contradictory.

And the true sign of a conspiracy nut... when they start accusing the other nuts of being in on the conspiracy.

Alex Jones' lawyer admits the one thing we all already knew
Alex Jones ‘playing a character,’ says lawyer
'It's performance art': Lawyer for Alex Jones says InfoWars founder is 'playing a character'
No, he was admitted to be a "Performance Artist" in court. Also, calling someone a nut isn't an argument.

Whether or not Jones says dumb shit on purpose to steal morons' money has no bearing on the fact that he truly is a delusional,ignorant, angry little sphincter of a human.

I never claimed he wasn't, I'm not defending Alex Jones or anything he says. Joe was claiming that I'm accusing "other nuts" of being in on the "conspiracy", I'm pointing out that he already admitted to being a performance artist playing a character. I'm only defending Dale, because Joe wasn't making arguments, just making personal attacks and character assassinations.

Well,in Joe's defense, it would be quite pointless to argue with the delusional dale.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, I skipped it because it was stupid, and frankly, repeating it would make us all dumber.

Calling it stupid isn't an argument. Pretty sure everyone can easily gather that you only skipped over it because you have no argument against it.

Yes, that's between you and your shrink, I don't get involved.

Telling someone that they need a shrink isn't an argument, it's an attempted character assassination.

1) The guy is already an emotional mess.
2) If he beleives conmen like Jones, he's already worse than gullible.
3) Again, I'll repeat - OCCAM'S FUCKING RAZOR

Character assassination, non-argument, and Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle, not the answer to all of life's problems. Simply stating "Occam's razor" instead of explaining why is should apply in the instance that's being discussed is not an argument.

Either one crazy person stole his mommy's guns and killed a bunch of people.

Or thousands of people conspired to stage a drill, realized people took it seriously, and then created a false narrative about a fictional school and fictional victims. This conspiracy would not only involve Federal, State and Local officials, but the entire town of Newtown (Pop 28,000), All of the news networks, including Fox and Talk Radio, and even the NRA!

Oh, you did attempt to explain. That's out of the ordinary for you, and I can see why.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that it's outside the realm of possibility for one individual to go on a shooting spree, however simply accepting that instead of questioning the validity of given information and investigating for yourself is just intellectual laziness and gullibility. You're also massively over-complicating the steps that would need to be taken in order to create that false narrative.

For example, for the borderline video, all they did was make a fake report for the state-run news media, then proceed to record shaky footage of a person firing off blanks in a mostly empty bar. I also want to point out that sheep-dipping is a practice that the Government has been conducting for years, so fake victims, or hell, letting one of their agents shoot real people and then getting an actor to claim that one of them was her child would be incredibly easy. Besides, as I keep mentioning, Operation North Woods was far more complicated than this, and it was an actual plan of action that the Government would have taken, the document is publicly available.

A small nitpick, but you also specifically said crazy person, yet mentally ill people are LESS likely to commit violent crimes, the narrative that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to defend themselves is a red herring.

Furthermore, it wouldn't require the entire town of Newtown, nor "all of the news networks and talk radio", it would only require the state-run media to run with it, then other stations wanting to report on this piece of news, they only need to repeat the information given. Since through Operation Mockingbird, again something the Government has acknowledged, all of the Mainstream media outlets are Government-run. Beyond that, all that's needed are a few fake witnesses, not an entire town.

Also, the absolute EASIEST condition to fulfill is the Government being corrupt. Monopolies are inherently corrupt, and the Government lies to the citizens on a regular basis. You and yours have even been pointing out that Donald Trump lies frequently, so the fact that you're vouching for the Government to be totally pure and innocent is incredibly laughable. Every single politician is well known for lying, for example, again, Operation North Woods would have been kept secret from the citizens, there was the "Iran has Nuclear weapons" narrative, the "Russia" narrative, and those are just what comes to mind immediately. Your faith in in humans that you've never met before likely impresses all kinds of religious people.

Lastly, the NRA is controlled opposition:

Now, since the simplest explanation is usually true, which of those is simpler.

Being simple or not doesn't make something automatically true, it only means your thinking stopped the moment it was easier for you to accept a specific narrative.

NO, I'm here to reduce assholes to greasy smears on the pavement.

You'll have a hard time doing that with text, keyboard warrior.

Which fact is this? Here's the thing, most mass shootings, you have contradictory early reports, that turn out to not be true.

Multiple armed men were sighted at Church Christ, only one was brought before a judge, the others were never mentioned. The shooter's Manifesto was written differently from the post it was attached to, the post being in "Queen's English", the other being in standard english, and the entire thing was filled with points which conflict, as if the post and manifesto were written by different people. You only believe that it wasn't a false flag because you were told it wasn't by the State Media. Even more damning, discussion of the event is being suppressed. I even have a copy of the manifesto, if by some miracle you're interested in information beyond the minimal.

Actually, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut talking about all the people he wants to shoot.

Cliche non-argument. I could do something just as pathetic; "I no want peoplez to haz gunz cuz they iz scawy". Though, ad-homs, cliche non-arguments, and character assassinations don't lead to honest discussion of ideas, just mud flinging. I suppose that's what you're after, though.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass.

Oh look, more mud-flinging. Actually, I have a better understanding of logic than you do.

The foundations of all logic and reason; the Principle of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be a specific thing, and also not that specific thing at the same time. Likewise, something cannot be one thing and also another at the exact same time, when both are mutually exclusive. So long as the Principle of Non-Contradiction holds, the Consistency Principle does as well: If one can find inconsistency in an idea, that idea must be rejected. For example, if one thing and another are mutually exclusive, and a true dichotomy, falsifying the first is all one needs to do to support the second. The consistency principle itself can be supported in this way; “Consistency is preferable” or “consistency is not preferable”. This is a True Dichotomy, one or the other must be true, but both cannot be at once. If one examines this, “Consistency is not preferable” is a consistent principle, but therefor self-contradictory, by the Principle of Non-Contradiction, it then must be rejected, therefor accepting consistency as being preferable. The Consistency Principle then brings one to the Burden of Proof: There are an infinite number of things that any and every individual is not doing at any one time, it’s therefor impossible to justify all of them at once, causing the burden of proof to fall on the active position, rather than the passive position, as the passive position is the position in which nothing is being done.

If you understood logic, you wouldn't be for gun control, since the position is inherently contradictory.

And the true sign of a conspiracy nut... when they start accusing the other nuts of being in on the conspiracy.

Alex Jones' lawyer admits the one thing we all already knew
Alex Jones ‘playing a character,’ says lawyer
'It's performance art': Lawyer for Alex Jones says InfoWars founder is 'playing a character'
No, he was admitted to be a "Performance Artist" in court. Also, calling someone a nut isn't an argument.

Whether or not Jones says dumb shit on purpose to steal morons' money has no bearing on the fact that he truly is a delusional,ignorant, angry little sphincter of a human.

I never claimed he wasn't, I'm not defending Alex Jones or anything he says. Joe was claiming that I'm accusing "other nuts" of being in on the "conspiracy", I'm pointing out that he already admitted to being a performance artist playing a character. I'm only defending Dale, because Joe wasn't making arguments, just making personal attacks and character assassinations.

Well,in Joe's defense, it would be quite pointless to argue with the delusional dale.

Calling him delusional isn't an argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I skipped it because it was stupid, and frankly, repeating it would make us all dumber.

Calling it stupid isn't an argument. Pretty sure everyone can easily gather that you only skipped over it because you have no argument against it.

Yes, that's between you and your shrink, I don't get involved.

Telling someone that they need a shrink isn't an argument, it's an attempted character assassination.

1) The guy is already an emotional mess.
2) If he beleives conmen like Jones, he's already worse than gullible.
3) Again, I'll repeat - OCCAM'S FUCKING RAZOR

Character assassination, non-argument, and Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle, not the answer to all of life's problems. Simply stating "Occam's razor" instead of explaining why is should apply in the instance that's being discussed is not an argument.

Either one crazy person stole his mommy's guns and killed a bunch of people.

Or thousands of people conspired to stage a drill, realized people took it seriously, and then created a false narrative about a fictional school and fictional victims. This conspiracy would not only involve Federal, State and Local officials, but the entire town of Newtown (Pop 28,000), All of the news networks, including Fox and Talk Radio, and even the NRA!

Oh, you did attempt to explain. That's out of the ordinary for you, and I can see why.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that it's outside the realm of possibility for one individual to go on a shooting spree, however simply accepting that instead of questioning the validity of given information and investigating for yourself is just intellectual laziness and gullibility. You're also massively over-complicating the steps that would need to be taken in order to create that false narrative.

For example, for the borderline video, all they did was make a fake report for the state-run news media, then proceed to record shaky footage of a person firing off blanks in a mostly empty bar. I also want to point out that sheep-dipping is a practice that the Government has been conducting for years, so fake victims, or hell, letting one of their agents shoot real people and then getting an actor to claim that one of them was her child would be incredibly easy. Besides, as I keep mentioning, Operation North Woods was far more complicated than this, and it was an actual plan of action that the Government would have taken, the document is publicly available.

A small nitpick, but you also specifically said crazy person, yet mentally ill people are LESS likely to commit violent crimes, the narrative that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to defend themselves is a red herring.

Furthermore, it wouldn't require the entire town of Newtown, nor "all of the news networks and talk radio", it would only require the state-run media to run with it, then other stations wanting to report on this piece of news, they only need to repeat the information given. Since through Operation Mockingbird, again something the Government has acknowledged, all of the Mainstream media outlets are Government-run. Beyond that, all that's needed are a few fake witnesses, not an entire town.

Also, the absolute EASIEST condition to fulfill is the Government being corrupt. Monopolies are inherently corrupt, and the Government lies to the citizens on a regular basis. You and yours have even been pointing out that Donald Trump lies frequently, so the fact that you're vouching for the Government to be totally pure and innocent is incredibly laughable. Every single politician is well known for lying, for example, again, Operation North Woods would have been kept secret from the citizens, there was the "Iran has Nuclear weapons" narrative, the "Russia" narrative, and those are just what comes to mind immediately. Your faith in in humans that you've never met before likely impresses all kinds of religious people.

Lastly, the NRA is controlled opposition:

Now, since the simplest explanation is usually true, which of those is simpler.

Being simple or not doesn't make something automatically true, it only means your thinking stopped the moment it was easier for you to accept a specific narrative.

NO, I'm here to reduce assholes to greasy smears on the pavement.

You'll have a hard time doing that with text, keyboard warrior.

Which fact is this? Here's the thing, most mass shootings, you have contradictory early reports, that turn out to not be true.

Multiple armed men were sighted at Church Christ, only one was brought before a judge, the others were never mentioned. The shooter's Manifesto was written differently from the post it was attached to, the post being in "Queen's English", the other being in standard english, and the entire thing was filled with points which conflict, as if the post and manifesto were written by different people. You only believe that it wasn't a false flag because you were told it wasn't by the State Media. Even more damning, discussion of the event is being suppressed. I even have a copy of the manifesto, if by some miracle you're interested in information beyond the minimal.

Actually, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut talking about all the people he wants to shoot.

Cliche non-argument. I could do something just as pathetic; "I no want peoplez to haz gunz cuz they iz scawy". Though, ad-homs, cliche non-arguments, and character assassinations don't lead to honest discussion of ideas, just mud flinging. I suppose that's what you're after, though.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass.

Oh look, more mud-flinging. Actually, I have a better understanding of logic than you do.

The foundations of all logic and reason; the Principle of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be a specific thing, and also not that specific thing at the same time. Likewise, something cannot be one thing and also another at the exact same time, when both are mutually exclusive. So long as the Principle of Non-Contradiction holds, the Consistency Principle does as well: If one can find inconsistency in an idea, that idea must be rejected. For example, if one thing and another are mutually exclusive, and a true dichotomy, falsifying the first is all one needs to do to support the second. The consistency principle itself can be supported in this way; “Consistency is preferable” or “consistency is not preferable”. This is a True Dichotomy, one or the other must be true, but both cannot be at once. If one examines this, “Consistency is not preferable” is a consistent principle, but therefor self-contradictory, by the Principle of Non-Contradiction, it then must be rejected, therefor accepting consistency as being preferable. The Consistency Principle then brings one to the Burden of Proof: There are an infinite number of things that any and every individual is not doing at any one time, it’s therefor impossible to justify all of them at once, causing the burden of proof to fall on the active position, rather than the passive position, as the passive position is the position in which nothing is being done.

If you understood logic, you wouldn't be for gun control, since the position is inherently contradictory.

And the true sign of a conspiracy nut... when they start accusing the other nuts of being in on the conspiracy.

Alex Jones' lawyer admits the one thing we all already knew
Alex Jones ‘playing a character,’ says lawyer
'It's performance art': Lawyer for Alex Jones says InfoWars founder is 'playing a character'
No, he was admitted to be a "Performance Artist" in court. Also, calling someone a nut isn't an argument.

Whether or not Jones says dumb shit on purpose to steal morons' money has no bearing on the fact that he truly is a delusional,ignorant, angry little sphincter of a human.

I never claimed he wasn't, I'm not defending Alex Jones or anything he says. Joe was claiming that I'm accusing "other nuts" of being in on the "conspiracy", I'm pointing out that he already admitted to being a performance artist playing a character. I'm only defending Dale, because Joe wasn't making arguments, just making personal attacks and character assassinations.

Well,in Joe's defense, it would be quite pointless to argue with the delusional dale.

Calling him delusional isn't an argument.

Yes, i know, thank you.

 

[Dale Smith]

You say "conspiracy nuts" as if using the term immediately disregards any and all arguments which go against the "official narrative". Watergate was a "Conspiracy", do you believe it never happened?

Oh, don't waste my time. Watergate was investigated, the facts were determined and people were (mostly) held responsible.

Sandy Hook, we also know what happened. Adam Lanza stole his mom's Prepper Arsenal, shot up a bunch of kids and teachers.

As of thus far, all you've done is assassinate Dale's character, with no actual basis outside of YOU disagreeing with what he says.

Dale would need character for me to assassinate. Only a true piece of subhuman shit would look at someone who just lost a child and say, 'You're a crisis actor" and then weave elaborate conspiracy theories about how this was an elaborate hoax to do...um... something.

Let's not forget, this thread is about how subhuman piece of shit Alex Jones is finally being dragged into a court of law over his scummy lies about this tragedy, and now he's trying to backpedal. My only regret is that Dale and every other subhuman piece of shit that pedals these lies that have ruined people's lives won't be in the dock with him.

LOL! Joe Blowhard, the card carrying commie, I went into the whole "Sandy Hook" event with the intent of shutting down the naysayers until I actually RESEARCHED the event, looked at the CNN footage, did a little background search of the major players and the events leading up to this. It was an amateurish attempt to try and pass off a DHS mass casualty drill that took place over two days (one of which was in the fall and the day of December 14th. I have listed no less than 50 anomalies and have used the CNN footage and the Connecticut state police's own photos on their own fucking website that PROVES that this event was staged. The 9/11 calls where a school employee is whispering into a phone claiming that some crazed gunman is firing off 150 plus shots but yet you can't hear a single shot. Where is the footage of the other alleged 460 students being evacuated? We have two photos of ten or so kids being led out of the school and for SOME fucking reason, they stopped and had children trade places in line. You believe that a bus driver would bypass the firehouse and drop four....oh wait, it was five...NO! WAIT!! It was SIX children that were dropped off on the curb of a random stranger by the name of Gene Rosen, wasn't told what transpired and that the children only told him AFTER he gave them some stuffed toys, cookies? HOW fucking STUPID are you to believe that load of bullshit? BUT WAIT! There's more! CNN footage shows Gene Rosen (the creepy guy that had kids dropped off at his house) showing him at the firehouse as the events of that day unfolded.

You ALWAYS conveniently bypass addressing any evidence that shows this being a total hoax and go right to the insults. I haven't "ruined" any lives by pointing out the bullshit lies. You are just pissed that you can't "bully" posters here into silence. You have already admitted that your hope is that every American citizen is denied any kind of gun ownership........did you not? Shall I repost what you stated here?

Like I stated before, you don't have to get up early in the morning to fool a commie sack of shit like yourself....one could sleep until noon.

 

[Dale Smith]

So, as long as the Government says that something is some specific way, that is absolutely the case, regardless of evidence contradicts that narrative or not? I'm also going to just point out how you skipped the vast majority of my post, proving that you're being entirely dishonest, rather than having a real discussion.

No, I skipped it because it was stupid, and frankly, repeating it would make us all dumber.

have not investigated Sandy Hook, however it was followed by a series of obvious false flags, so such a thing wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Yes, that's between you and your shrink, I don't get involved.

So, what you're saying is that he needs to become an emotional mess rather than considering possibilities which go against the official narrative. Pretty sure the word for what you're wanting him to be is "Gullible", like people who instantly believe the official narrative on the basis of it BEING the official narrative, rather than thinking for themselves.

1) The guy is already an emotional mess.
2) If he beleives conmen like Jones, he's already worse than gullible.
3) Again, I'll repeat - OCCAM'S FUCKING RAZOR

Either one crazy person stole his mommy's guns and killed a bunch of people.

Or thousands of people conspired to stage a drill, realized people took it seriously, and then created a false narrative about a fictional school and fictional victims. This conspiracy would not only involve Federal, State and Local officials, but the entire town of Newtown (Pop 28,000), All of the news networks, including Fox and Talk Radio, and even the NRA!

Now, since the simplest explanation is usually true, which of those is simpler.

We were all aware already, but every time you post a message on this forum, all you do is prove you're not here for actual discussion, you're here to push a narrative already carried by the State Media and the Government. Anything to avoid thinking for yourself, I guess.

NO, I'm here to reduce assholes to greasy smears on the pavement.

Not so elaborate, really. The last few shootings were exposed as hoaxes by the footage taken of them. For example, the fact that the New Zealand Shooting had multiple trained gunman involved,

Which fact is this? Here's the thing, most mass shootings, you have contradictory early reports, that turn out to not be true.

As for why, well, gosh, it's like they've been pushing gun restrictions for decades now, and they're trying to use fear to advance that narrative, how about that? Of course, you're fully aware of that, and you're playing dumb.

Actually, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut talking about all the people he wants to shoot.

So, the Government attacking someone over something they've said, to silence them, is evidence that what they're saying isn't true. Logic dictates that it's the opposite, but hey, let's just continue ignoring logic, like you've always done.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass.

I also want to point out that Alex Jones has admitted to being an actor, in court. He mixes in real conspiracies that have evidence backing them, with "Turning the frogs gay", to discredit them. He's controlled opposition.

And the true sign of a conspiracy nut... when they start accusing the other nuts of being in on the conspiracy.

Most mass shootings since the 1990's have been either government staged psy-ops or totally staged events. The Port Arthur shooting in Australia in 1996 is a perfect example. A low IQ patsy with a 73 score on the IQ test kills 35 people? Wendy Scurr, that survived the attack tells a very different story. The Dunblane school shooting official narrative reeks as bad as the New Zealand mosque shooting. You might want to think about why the "powers that be" want their serfs to be disarmed, Joe Blowhard, the card carrying commie.........

 

[ranfunck]

LOL Joe must love getting his ass kicked.

 

[ranfunck]

What some will do for money cuz he doesn't seem to be that stupid but then again I could be wrong.

 

[Dale Smith]

LOL Joe must love getting his ass kicked.

Kicking Joe Blowhards ass is a guilty pleasure of mine but engaging him doesn't enhance the limited amount of time I have to post because of other forums that I am on and the Facebook page that I am a moderator on coupled with the fact that I have two bands that I am rehearsing and recording with. I have certain posters here that I enjoy reading of what they have to say. Joe doesn't bring anything to the table...

 

[Dale Smith]

Oh, don't waste my time. Watergate was investigated, the facts were determined and people were (mostly) held responsible.

Sandy Hook, we also know what happened. Adam Lanza stole his mom's Prepper Arsenal, shot up a bunch of kids and teachers.

So, as long as the Government says that something is some specific way, that is absolutely the case, regardless of evidence contradicts that narrative or not? I'm also going to just point out how you skipped the vast majority of my post, proving that you're being entirely dishonest, rather than having a real discussion.

I have not investigated Sandy Hook, however it was followed by a series of obvious false flags, so such a thing wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Dale would need character for me to assassinate. Only a true piece of subhuman shit would look at someone who just lost a child and say, 'You're a crisis actor"

So, what you're saying is that he needs to become an emotional mess rather than considering possibilities which go against the official narrative. Pretty sure the word for what you're wanting him to be is "Gullible", like people who instantly believe the official narrative on the basis of it BEING the official narrative, rather than thinking for themselves.

and then weave elaborate conspiracy theories about how this was an elaborate hoax to do...um... something.

Oh, there it is. You ignored the vast majority of my post so that you can keep using it as a tool to continue avoiding actual discussion on the subject. We were all aware already, but every time you post a message on this forum, all you do is prove you're not here for actual discussion, you're here to push a narrative already carried by the State Media and the Government. Anything to avoid thinking for yourself, I guess.

Not so elaborate, really. The last few shootings were exposed as hoaxes by the footage taken of them. For example, the fact that the New Zealand Shooting had multiple trained gunman involved, but the other two were never mentioned again. Or the fact that the shooter's manifesto was written differently from his post that accompanied the manifesto. Or the fact that no consistently ideology was present in the manifesto, which meant he wasn't actually acting on his own behalf. Then there was also the Borderline Shooting, in which the video showed a completely empty bar aside from one person completely ignoring the supposed gunman firing supposed shots at the crowd that didn't exist, despite every State Media news report claiming the place was packed. This is also in addition to the Government's already existing history of False Flags, such as Operation North Woods, which you completely ignored when I mentioned it. I actually find it amazing that Lemmings like you have so much trust in a monopolistic organization of robbers, murderers, kidnappers, and liars, without having ever met them in any one single instance at any point in your life. I would admire your blind faith, but it's based entirely on laziness.

As for why, well, gosh, it's like they've been pushing gun restrictions for decades now, and they're trying to use fear to advance that narrative, how about that? Of course, you're fully aware of that, and you're playing dumb.

Let's not forget, this thread is about how subhuman piece of shit Alex Jones is finally being dragged into a court of law over his scummy lies about this tragedy, and now he's trying to backpedal. My only regret is that Dale and every other subhuman piece of shit that pedals these lies that have ruined people's lives won't be in the dock with him.

So, the Government attacking someone over something they've said, to silence them, is evidence that what they're saying isn't true. Logic dictates that it's the opposite, but hey, let's just continue ignoring logic, like you've always done.

I also want to point out that Alex Jones has admitted to being an actor, in court. He mixes in real conspiracies that have evidence backing them, with "Turning the frogs gay", to discredit them. He's controlled opposition.

You kicked Joe's ass......and it was done in a manner that was non-insulting......kudos to you.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, you did attempt to explain. That's out of the ordinary for you, and I can see why.

Because it's kind of a waste of time to try to use logic on conspiracy nuts.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that it's outside the realm of possibility for one individual to go on a shooting spree, however simply accepting that instead of questioning the validity of given information and investigating for yourself is just intellectual laziness and gullibility. You're also massively over-complicating the steps that would need to be taken in order to create that false narrative.

No need to "investigate for myself". We have professionals for that.

I just find it absurd that thousands of people would conspire to create this event for... um... reasons. So that Obama could propose tepid gun control measures that Congress would reject on the way to sucking the NRA's dick? That seems like an awful lot of effort for no result.

Being simple or not doesn't make something automatically true, it only means your thinking stopped the moment it was easier for you to accept a specific narrative.

No, it means you measure two scenarios, and you accept probabilities.

A nut shoots some people up. Pretty simple. We have a lot of nuts (because we don't lock them up anymore) and we have lots of guns (because the NRA sells us lots of guns).

The government conducts an ELABORATE conspiracy involving thousands of people who normally couldn't agree on what to order for lunch.

If you understood logic, you wouldn't be for gun control, since the position is inherently contradictory.

Gun control is very logical. There are some people that even NRA members agree should not have guns. People who hear voices in their heads and people with long criminal records. Everyone agrees THEY shouldn't have guns.

The only question is, how hard do you make it for everyone else to get a gun to keep those people from getting them.

Well, funny thing. The rest of the industrialized world has figured this out. Civilians don't really need guns. They ban or limit private gun ownership, they have nowhere near the murder rates we have.

This really, really isn't complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

I never claimed he wasn't, I'm not defending Alex Jones or anything he says. Joe was claiming that I'm accusing "other nuts" of being in on the "conspiracy", I'm pointing out that he already admitted to being a performance artist playing a character. I'm only defending Dale, because Joe wasn't making arguments, just making personal attacks and character assassinations.

Again, Jones and Dale have no "Character" for me to assassinate.

Jones is someone who has realized there's money to be made off the crazies like Dale.

Until a court takes it all from him...

 

[JoeB131]

Most mass shootings since the 1990's have been either government staged psy-ops or totally staged events. The Port Arthur shooting in Australia in 1996 is a perfect example. A low IQ patsy with a 73 score on the IQ test kills 35 people? Wendy Scurr, that survived the attack tells a very different story. The Dunblane school shooting official narrative reeks as bad as the New Zealand mosque shooting. You might want to think about why the "powers that be" want their serfs to be disarmed, Joe Blowhard, the card carrying commie........

So it's not just OUR government that is staging these things, it's ALL the governments? Really, Stewbum Dale?

not sure why a high IQ is needed to shoot people. Trust me, when I was in the Army, I knew a lot of idiots, mostly from the Red States, that were dumber than stumps, but you got them on the range, they could hit the target just fine.

The difference is, these countries don't have an NRA, that goes into panic mode every time there is a mass shooting. Instead, these countries figure out how the nut got a gun,and they make sure the next nut can't get one that way.

LOL! Joe Blowhard, the card carrying commie, I went into the whole "Sandy Hook" event with the intent of shutting down the naysayers until I actually RESEARCHED the event, looked at the CNN footage, did a little background search of the major players and the events leading up to this.

Somehow, I don't think you were a normal person before 2013. No one believes that. Reading your posts, we can all see a high level of neurosis.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Reality Manufacturing Co doesnt even try hard anymore....

Will never forget the look on my wife's face when she viewed these photo's of the Boston bombing site.....

boston bombing - Google Search

As an ER nurse for 23 years, her jaw hit the floor seeing the blood! It was classic! No need to elaborate.....matrix dwellers wont get the implication. My wife who could not care less about this stuff sure did have a major wtf moment!

Oh....and then the little $5.00 cute fence in the foreground!. Quite stout for a $5.00 fence!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Because it's kind of a waste of time to try to use logic on conspiracy nuts.

You've already displayed that you know nothing of logic, your positions are inconsistent, and you frown upon people who think for themselves, as the following quote displays:

No need to "investigate for myself". We have professionals for that.

That line of anti-thought explains why you never question anything the Government jams down your throat. Don't think, the Government doesn't like it when you think. "Trust me" said the North Korean Government, as they claimed to have landed the first man on the sun.

I just find it absurd that thousands of people would conspire to create this event for... um... reasons. So that Obama could propose tepid gun control measures that Congress would reject on the way to sucking the NRA's dick? That seems like an awful lot of effort for no result.

It doesn't take thousands of people, as I literally just got done explaining. I also explained the reasons, you're just ignoring it so you can continue asserting that people you've never met before have the integrity of an angel, and only want what's best for you.

In the video, it was shown that the NRA has supported every piece of gun legislation since their inception, you just didn't bother watching it because you don't want to do more thinking than the Government is okay with. By your logic, there should be no Gun Monopolization laws, yet there are. Your beloved Chicago has been enforcing Gun Monopolization perfectly.

No, it means you measure two scenarios, and you accept probabilities.

You didn't measure two scenarios, your beloved Professionals only proposed one for you. You gotta ask them for a second so that you can consider other possibilities. You really love your Genetic Fallacy.

A nut shoots some people up. Pretty simple. We have a lot of nuts (because we don't lock them up anymore) and we have lots of guns (because the NRA sells us lots of guns).

All I got out of this paragraph was that you think anyone who owns a gun is a nut, you accept the Government's narrative without thinking about it, and want to lock up people who own weapons.

The NRA supports Gun Monopolization, as shown in the video that you totally ignored because you don't like information.

The government conducts an ELABORATE conspiracy involving thousands of people who normally couldn't agree on what to order for lunch.

I already explained that the Government can, and has, orchestrated similar conspiracies, you're just reasserting the same idea without supporting it with anything. It only takes a few people, not thousands, you're only asserting that it's a large number of people to attempt to back up your Argument form Incredulity.

Gun control is very logical. There are some people that even NRA members agree should not have guns. People who hear voices in their heads and people with long criminal records. Everyone agrees THEY shouldn't have guns.

NRA supports Gun Monopolization, as the video showed. You're ignoring it because they can't be your boogyman if they agree with you.

It's not logical, it has already been shown numerous times that Gun Monopolization doesn't stop "crime". You know, because "criminals" don't check whether something is legal or not before doing it. Beyond that, it was made even more pointless when people gained the ability to 3D Print guns. Guns aren't traceable if you don't register them, and beyond that, Gun Monopolization only increases crime rates, since only people who follow the "law" would be disarmed. Not to mention the vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. then there's the fact Chicago has some of the strictest restrictions and still has one of the highest crime rates in America.

Here's another video, even though you'll totally ignore it, since thinking isn't your job, it's your Gods in Government's job.

The only question is, how hard do you make it for everyone else to get a gun to keep those people from getting them.

Everyone has the right to own themselves, and therefor the right to own weapons to defend themselves. Either people can own weapons, therefor increasing the risk of doing something unethical to someone else, or only those who want to do something unethical owns guns, and the Police show up 15 minutes later to outline the body of the victim in chalk.

Well, funny thing. The rest of the industrialized world has figured this out. Civilians don't really need guns. They ban or limit private gun ownership, they have nowhere near the murder rates we have.

This really, really isn't complicated.

Argument to the people, or argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument that proposes that an idea must be true because many or most people agree with it.

Not only is that fallacious, because most people believing the sky is green doesn't suddenly make the sky green, but also because the Government does not speak for the people, nor does it represent them.

Banning or limiting gun ownership just creates more victims, especially since the ability to 3D Print Guns has made them even easier to get without the Government being able to track them. You know, especially consider prohibition doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work. Although, feel free to argue that people can't get drugs, I'd love to see you argue that unironically.

I also just want to point out that you unironically argued that people don't need to defend themselves, after having just got done telling me that people really did just get shot to death by a mass shooter. Yeah, Joe, those people didn't need to defend themselves.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I never claimed he wasn't, I'm not defending Alex Jones or anything he says. Joe was claiming that I'm accusing "other nuts" of being in on the "conspiracy", I'm pointing out that he already admitted to being a performance artist playing a character. I'm only defending Dale, because Joe wasn't making arguments, just making personal attacks and character assassinations.

Again, Jones and Dale have no "Character" for me to assassinate.

Jones is someone who has realized there's money to be made off the crazies like Dale.

Until a court takes it all from him...

Calling Dale crazy isn't an argument. You don't seem to understand the basics of argumentation.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument.

 

[JoeB131]

You've already displayed that you know nothing of logic, your positions are inconsistent, and you frown upon people who think for themselves, as the following quote displays:

I frown upon crazy nuts and worry I have to share my streets with them.

already explained that the Government can, and has, orchestrated similar conspiracies, you're just reasserting the same idea without supporting it with anything. It only takes a few people, not thousands, you're only asserting that it's a large number of people to attempt to back up your Argument form Incredulity.

Um,no... It really would take thousands of people to carry this out.

First, every last law enforcement officer there would have to be in on it, knowing there were no dead kids in there, and that there were no kids there at all.

Then you have the people of Newtown. They would really know which schools are open in their town. It's on their fucking tax bill, even if they don't have kids there themselves. So all 28,000 of them would have to be in on it.

Then you have the media. ANd, yes, I would have to include Fox News and even Hate Radio as part of this. All of them concede that Sandy Hook happened, it was a thing. They might disagree on what to do about it, coming up with crazy ideas like "Let's arm all the teachers, that'll do it!" But you would have to conclude ALL of them knew it was fake or found out it was, but decided to parrot the official government line.

Finally, the NRA. You would have to believe that someone in the NRA went to Ollie North or Wayne Foamy and said,"Hey, look, this is something someone posted on the internet, I think his name is Dale, and it proves Sandy Hook wasn't a thing because of baloney sandwiches or something!" And here they would have a chance to shut down the gun grabbers once and for all and they do.. um... nothing with it? Really?

Oh, right. They are in on the conspiracy.

And when the guy who fanned the flames of the crazy admits he's just a performance artist who was in it for the money, well... he's part of the conspiracy theory to.

 

[Rustic]

Oh, you did attempt to explain. That's out of the ordinary for you, and I can see why.

Because it's kind of a waste of time to try to use logic on conspiracy nuts.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that it's outside the realm of possibility for one individual to go on a shooting spree, however simply accepting that instead of questioning the validity of given information and investigating for yourself is just intellectual laziness and gullibility. You're also massively over-complicating the steps that would need to be taken in order to create that false narrative.

No need to "investigate for myself". We have professionals for that.

I just find it absurd that thousands of people would conspire to create this event for... um... reasons. So that Obama could propose tepid gun control measures that Congress would reject on the way to sucking the NRA's dick? That seems like an awful lot of effort for no result.

Being simple or not doesn't make something automatically true, it only means your thinking stopped the moment it was easier for you to accept a specific narrative.

No, it means you measure two scenarios, and you accept probabilities.

A nut shoots some people up. Pretty simple. We have a lot of nuts (because we don't lock them up anymore) and we have lots of guns (because the NRA sells us lots of guns).

The government conducts an ELABORATE conspiracy involving thousands of people who normally couldn't agree on what to order for lunch.

If you understood logic, you wouldn't be for gun control, since the position is inherently contradictory.

Gun control is very logical. There are some people that even NRA members agree should not have guns. People who hear voices in their heads and people with long criminal records. Everyone agrees THEY shouldn't have guns.

The only question is, how hard do you make it for everyone else to get a gun to keep those people from getting them.

Well, funny thing. The rest of the industrialized world has figured this out. Civilians don't really need guns. They ban or limit private gun ownership, they have nowhere near the murder rates we have.

This really, really isn't complicated.

Lol
You like blanket statements want to comes to gun control... obviously

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I frown upon crazy nuts and worry I have to share my streets with them.

Ad hominem fallacy, fallacies are all you seem to have, it's pretty pathetic.

Um,no... It really would take thousands of people to carry this out.

First, every last law enforcement officer there would have to be in on it, knowing there were no dead kids in there, and that there were no kids there at all.

The Police are employed by the monopoly on arbitration that you refer to as "Government". Just like the Army, which was poised to lie to the people of the "United States". Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia

Then you have the people of Newtown. They would really know which schools are open in their town. It's on their fucking tax bill, even if they don't have kids there themselves. So all 28,000 of them would have to be in on it.

Again, it would not require the people of Newtown, they only need to bribe, like, three or four witnesses, or hire actors. They steal money from everyone, so it's not as though it's impossible. ALSO nobody knows every person in a school. Even if someone were to call them out on inconsistencies, the Media, which is controlled through Operation Mockingbird, has no reason to air those doubts. The Russia narrative is proof that they're perfectly willing to air nothing but bullshit.

Then you have the media. ANd, yes, I would have to include Fox News and even Hate Radio as part of this. All of them concede that Sandy Hook happened, it was a thing. They might disagree on what to do about it, coming up with crazy ideas like "Let's arm all the teachers, that'll do it!" But you would have to conclude ALL of them knew it was fake or found out it was, but decided to parrot the official government line.

Fox news is no less Government Controlled than the other TV News Stations. You're also making another argumentum ad populum fallacy. Operation Mockingbird - Wikipedia
The Government controls the mainstream news, it's publicly available, and they have acknowledged it.

Finally, the NRA. You would have to believe that someone in the NRA went to Ollie North or Wayne Foamy and said,"Hey, look, this is something someone posted on the internet, I think his name is Dale, and it proves Sandy Hook wasn't a thing because of baloney sandwiches or something!" And here they would have a chance to shut down the gun grabbers once and for all and they do.. um... nothing with it? Really?

Are you wearing blinders? I literally just showed you that the NRA supports Gun Monopolization. They have no issue with gun grabbers, because they support Gun Monopolization, you dishonest Binswanger.

Oh, right. They are in on the conspiracy.

And when the guy who fanned the flames of the crazy admits he's just a performance artist who was in it for the money, well... he's part of the conspiracy theory to.

We literally have two-million people working for the Federal Government. I'd ask how the idea of an organization working for its own interests is confusing to you, but you're one of the people who thinks Conspiracies don't exist because the Government and Government-run media use it as a derogatory term.

Hey, Binswanger, what part of working for the Government suddenly makes a person incapable of keeping secrets, despite all evidence that they actually do?