When should you begin distrusting someone generally?

skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
When should you begin distrusting someone generally?

I have been engaged in a debate with somebody who thinks the 2001 Osama 'confession' video is authentic.

Since my opponent specifically refuses to deal with "what-if" scenarios, which are otherwise routine in argumentation, I'd like some rational responders here to chime in and tell me how many lies a person needs to tell, and how many murders result from those lies, before you will withdraw your basic trust in their assertions and "evidence".

 

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
When should you begin

When should you begin distrusting someone, generally?

 

Answer...

The very moment you learn of their existence -_-

What Would Kharn Do?


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
As a skeptic, you know you

As a skeptic, you know you should always be skeptical of people.

 To be distrustful and skeptical of a person's actions and statements, in this case Bush, based on previous actions that were lies, misdirections, and verifiable crimes is fine. "Withdraw[ing] your basic trust in their assertions and [the government's statements regarding numerous different department's physical] "evidence" does not mean you can arbitrarily lay blame to that person when you have pretty solid evidence that doesn't point to that person being guilty. That is the difference.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:As a

HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:

As a skeptic, you know you should always be skeptical of people.

 To be distrustful and skeptical of a person's actions and statements, in this case Bush, based on previous actions that were lies, misdirections, and verifiable crimes is fine. "Withdraw[ing] your basic trust in their assertions and [the government's statements regarding numerous different department's physical] "evidence" does not mean you can arbitrarily lay blame to that person when you have pretty solid evidence that doesn't point to that person being guilty. That is the difference.

But physical evidence can easily be faked, so what exactly is "solid" about the Osama confession tape from 2001?  Do you seriously think this couldn't be faked?  If it's possible to fake it, then the question becomes how probable that it is faked.  It came from an administration that would obviously have the capability of Hollywood to manufacture fake video evidence, and who is plagued with copious amounts of greivous lies.

I honestly don't understand where you people got your ridiculous belief that ANYTHING used as "evidence" from the Bush administration, should first be trusted until proven fraudulent.

How many more lies and deciet and corruption must Bush engage in, before you finally start suspecting him of manufacturing false evidence?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Look Dude, I didn't respond

Look Dude, I didn't respond to this to rehash the debate on 911, but was merely answering the question you asked in the OP, using your example. You have basically assumed a few things that end the debate.

1. Bush is part of an NWO who has the power to create any evidence he wants to, through every single government body

2. His past history merits the claim that any evidence presented by the government(which he is the executive branch of), should be summarily seen as wrong until proved right

3. You think people have proved some of the evidence is wrong, therefore, BUSH is guilty, end of story.

 

People have presented numerous pieces of evidence to the contrary, but you are unwilling to accept anything that does not conform to the logic of the three assumptions listed above. At this point, no logical discourse can continue. The point is moot from a self admitted reluctance to accept anything to the contrary as was evidenced by DeludedGod's physics explanation. I wash my hands of this post as well since it is a bit of a trolling ploy to paint people as being unsketpical, and that I find deceptive.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:Look

HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:

Look Dude, I didn't respond to this to rehash the debate on 911, but was merely answering the question you asked in the OP, using your example. You have basically assumed a few things that end the debate.

1. Bush is part of an NWO who has the power to create any evidence he wants to, through every single government body

2. His past history merits the claim that any evidence presented by the government(which he is the executive branch of), should be summarily seen as wrong until proved right

3. You think people have proved some of the evidence is wrong, therefore, BUSH is guilty, end of story.

 

People have presented numerous pieces of evidence to the contrary, but you are unwilling to accept anything that does not conform to the logic of the three assumptions listed above. At this point, no logical discourse can continue. The point is moot from a self admitted reluctance to accept anything to the contrary as was evidenced by DeludedGod's physics explanation. I wash my hands of this post as well since it is a bit of a trolling ploy to paint people as being unsketpical, and that I find deceptive.

Can you give an argument that Bushian evidence SHOULD be trusted until proved false?

I'm willing to discuss any argument that Bush SHOULD be trusted, given our general agreement that Bush is a liar and murderer, and has manufactured false evidence before.  If I'm not irrational to be skeptical of Bushian evidence, then quit pretending the problem is with my lack of open-mindedness.  I don't trust people after they use manufactured false evidence and lies to send American people to their deaths.  But the rest of you seem determined to believe Bush is innocent till proven guilty.  Sorry dudes, Bush's record of past actions doesn't justify giving him the benefit of the doubt in a controversy over his "evidence."

Unfortunately, your reasons for quitting the debate don't wash, there is all the possibility and probability of logical discourse. 

But I have a lot of practice with people who support Bushian evidence, who then "wash their hands" of talking with me.  Smoke and mirrors doesn't last long in a debate.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:I have

skepticdude wrote:

I have been engaged in a debate with somebody who thinks the 2001 Osama 'confession' video is authentic.

Since my opponent specifically refuses to deal with "what-if" scenarios, which are otherwise routine in argumentation, I'd like some rational responders here to chime in and tell me how many lies a person needs to tell, and how many murders result from those lies, before you will withdraw your basic trust in their assertions and "evidence".

 

I don't trust you, that's after reading a second of your posts.

So many clues in your posts that you're not into 'debate', you just want to argue....

However to address your question, I will generally go with empirical evidence, physical cues from body language and not much else.

 

Please bear in mind that this site is an Atheist site, not a conspiracy debunking site. Find one of those, you'll be happier.

No need to respond, your opinion doesn't matter to me.

 

 

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


MonkeyNutz
MonkeyNutz's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 skepticdudeI do not

 

skepticdudeI do not believe that Bush   manufactured evidence for the 9/11 attack.Al Qaeda is real. I can speak from experience. They do exist and they do want to kill every non-Muslim and even Muslims who get in their way off trying to spread Islam to every part of the Earth they can.   These terrorists are the murderers. They are coming into their own the same way the Catholic Church did 600b years ago…they are really pushing their fundamentalist view of Islam  across the Muslim world and beyond.As to why our government made decisions to go into Iraq and the mess they made once we got there…well, that is a another story and yes, facts have most definitely been distorted about our blunders there.Do not always assume that the evidence, or what is reported to be evidence, is accurate. Do not assume that you or I, or anyone for that matter could even begin to know what our intelligence communities know or have at least learn over the last seven years, and if they even can figure it out for themselves.9/11 occurred because, we became apathetic and were not paying attention to the jackasses who we alienated, after we trained them in Afghanistan (mujahedeen), they had no war to fight…so they took the fight to us…the infidels…because we are a “Christian nation”….even if we were an “Atheist nation”…now there is a funny thought…they would still be after us… Anyway …HeyZeusCreaseToe,Back to the original thought about trusting people…Can a person ever truly trust themselves?I agree with you…trust no one else…but can we even trust ourselves?Just wanted to see what you thought? "This is Louisiana, Chief! I mean, how do you know who your daddy is? Because your momma told you so." -- Bill Brousard

 

I may not be the smartest guy here…but I sure as hell know who Alfred Einstein is! – Monkey Nutz


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:skepticdude

Abu Lahab wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

I have been engaged in a debate with somebody who thinks the 2001 Osama 'confession' video is authentic.

Since my opponent specifically refuses to deal with "what-if" scenarios, which are otherwise routine in argumentation, I'd like some rational responders here to chime in and tell me how many lies a person needs to tell, and how many murders result from those lies, before you will withdraw your basic trust in their assertions and "evidence".

 

I don't trust you, that's after reading a second of your posts.

Wow, what a thorough person you are.

Quote:
So many clues in your posts that you're not into 'debate', you just want to argue....

Irrelevent, if I give you an argument you can't answer, that's life.  My motives have nothing to do with the soundness of my arguments.  Leaving me wondering why you prefer to focus on motive.

Quote:
However to address your question, I will generally go with empirical evidence, physical cues from body language and not much else.

And what do you do in the case of videos which are alleged by one side to be faked?  Do you have criteria for determining when a video has been faked, yes or no.

Quote:
Please bear in mind that this site is an Atheist site, not a conspiracy debunking site. Find one of those, you'll be happier.

Please bear in mind that this forum says it is allowable to discuss ANY poliics (emphasis original).  That'll be your first lesson in empiricism.  Your next lesson is to read more than one second of text before you mouth off.

Quote:
No need to respond, your opinion doesn't matter to me.

I will decide whether you are telling the truth, and I don't think you are.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
MonkeyNutz

MonkeyNutz wrote:

 

skepticdudeI do not believe that Bush   manufactured evidence for the 9/11 attack.Al Qaeda is real. I can speak from experience. They do exist and they do want to kill every non-Muslim and even Muslims who get in their way off trying to spread Islam to every part of the Earth they can.   These terrorists are the murderers. They are coming into their own the same way the Catholic Church did 600b years ago…they are really pushing their fundamentalist view of Islam  across the Muslim world and beyond.
Why weren't the Taliban trying to kill things all non-Muslim, when they met with U.S. oil interests in Washington D.C., months before 911, to discuss a pipeline deal through Afghanistan?  The deal was not sweet enough for the Taliban, and they rejected it.  John O'Neil discovered a memo in 1998 from Atef showing that Osama had detailed knowledge of the Taliban/U.S. pipeline negotiations. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:aYlC5XKJVJYJ:dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo/+Taliban+pipeline&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us Obviously, something is seriously wrong with your idea that Al Qaeda are trying to kill all things non-Muslim.  They weren't firing any weapons on Bush and his clan, the alleged object of supreme hatred by extremist Muslims, when they met with them to discuss this pipeline deal.  The deal fell through, and now, suddenly, 911 happens, and it's all the Taliban's fault.  Do a little research before you respond.  Brisard is a qualified expert in terrorism financing, and wrote a book entitlted "Bin Laden: the Forbidden truth", a best-seller in Europe, but banned in America for a while.  That's where it is alleged that the U.S., months before 911, tried to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban through Afghanistan, the Taliban didn't like the deal, and the U.S. then said "accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we'll bury you under a carpet of bombs." Richard Butler is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the Council on Foreign Relations, and he used the "carpet of bombs" quotation in a CNN interview.  He was still in the process of verifying the claim.  And Clinton, of course, allowed Osama to slip away, refusing offers from Sudan to capture and deliver Osama to the U.S.   (Washington Post, 10/3/2001).  See also: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm So if you really think about it, capturing Osama would then make America cry out even louder "what the hell are we still doing in Iraq?".  Bush NEEDS Osama to keep escaping after being cornered by US military forces, like he has 4 times previously. Brisard's MO is here:http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/jeancharles-brisard-contr.html He was the lead attorney for the 911 victims lawsuit, and was sued for "libel" in various courts several times by Khaled bin Mahfouz, among other billionare Muslim oilmen.  KBM was former investor in the terrorist financing "Bank of Credit and Commerce International", which laundered money for drug trafficking, terrorists and illegal arms dealers. He was indicted for fraud but the case was dropped after he paid $225m in a civil settlement with New York state and the Federal Reserve. KBM is a multi-billionaire oil-businessman.  Don't think money doesn't talk in a court of law. Brisard eventually signed a full confession stating he exaggerrated KBM's role in financing Osama, but there is plenty of evidence that Brisard's confession was insincere and only made due to threats. One French court gave the win to Brisard, ordering KBM to pay Brisard costs and damages, and overruling a previous court ruling in KBM's favor. I guess Brisard got a little too close to the truth. But no, you aren't really understanding geopolitics if you think it's fundamentalist Muslims against the U.S.  Go learn a little more about counter-intelligence and war propaganda, used effectively for centuries before you were born, then ask yourself how stupid it is to think that the USA is NOT doing the same regarding this Osama "problem".

 

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.