CluedIn, you will Not be surprised to learn that I agree with (and second) your statement above. But allow me to expound.CluedIn » September 25th, 2016, 6:36 am wrote:Shopguy - I find your "friend of a friend" (co-worker in your case) story a little suspicious. How would a conversation like that work its way back to being told to you? Never, is a strong word about "smiling" a week after losing a loved one to a violent crime. Do you think it appropriate or normal for family members to be smiling and laughing immediately after their loved ones are killed, or is it absurd to think people would be in a constant state of depression and shouldn't be mugging for the camera? Because when I see a supposed father laughing at a podium after his 6 year old was just shot in the face, I don't Be-LIE-ve.Shopguy » September 24th, 2016, 9:29 pm wrote:I am most interested in how people decide that something happened in a certain way then choose what evidence they find convincing based on how well it will support the conclusion they previously arrived at.
For example some of my co-workers were talking to friends who said a person could never smile a week after they lost a loved one in a violent crime. I thought it was an absurd idea, but these people thought it was an excellent piece of evidence upon which to support a conclusion.
I've don't ever remember being a fan of the government, I was raised to be suspicious of them from a young age. This sounds like a strange position to take for a person who enlisted in the military, but I did need a job.
It is also surprising that you state you have been suspicious of the gov't from a young age, but you joined the military for a job? That doesn't make sense to me.
Shopguy, I'm going to address your statement about being "interested in how people decide that something happened in a certain way then choose what evidence they find convincing based on how well it will support the conclusion they previously arrived at.”
I think you may have found the wrong site if that's where your interest Lies. You see, this forum does not ramble on with speculations of how "something happened in a certain way.” This phrase suggests (at best) that you are here to see how we explain what really "happened" in any given event. It's like you are pretending to be amused by reading "conspiracy theories,” although you don't use that term.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're perhaps just mistaken on this point. Let me be clear.
The psychotic govern-media clowns TELL their idiotic STORIES, and since they proffer them to begin with, the burden remains on them to prove it.
All we do (or can do) is research and analyze the evidence to see if there is deception, fabrication, or otherwise. There are many shades and methods of deception. We don't have the burden of proving that an event did not happen.
On occasion the evidence of fabrication is SO clear that (as a criminal defense attorney) I would submit that prosecutors routinely secure convictions on the charge of Conspiracy against groups of people on FAR LESS evidence than that which is contained on this forum regarding 9/11 and other events.
Your little story about friends and co workers is (from my estimation) a thinly veiled attempt to minimize the collective body of research here by reducing it (via a tacitly implied association with these "co-workers”) to crazy conclusions based on merely misinterpreted ill-timed chuckles.
Moreover, you have continued to dodge the very simple question of what interests you to the point of registering here. If all you want to do is read "how people reason" then I don't see the need for you posting anything here, including an introduction.
As a non-moderator I'll just politely ask you to leave and not come back unless you have something useful to say. Until then I'll assume you don't. If I'm out of line I'll gladly take a chastising from a mod. I've been wrong before. And it will happen again to be sure.