www.Savethemales.ca

[JaguarMike]

Read his stuff.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

"Start a family"? "Stop your sex drive"? This guy sounds gay or something.

 

[Create Reality]

Hes just strongly religous, thats all. He makes valid points about the male sex drive though.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by Derek Flint
How about actually proving they are true with real facts and evidence, and not innuendo, lies by omission, selectively taking facts out of context, while ignoring exculpatory evidence, etc...?


These agenda driven, one-sided web sites aren't going to give you the whole story.

If you think they are, you're deluding yourselves.

That is wildly hypocritical.

You're basically say, "I'm right and I don't have to prove myself, but you do."

Not an acceptable argument. Sorry.

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by TillTheEndOfTime
That is wildly hypocritical.

You're basically say, "I'm right and I don't have to prove myself, but you do."

Not an acceptable argument. Sorry.

If you're going to make the accusations, be prepared to back them up.

And with something more credible than agenda-driven, biased web sites that ignore exculpatory evidence.

The burden of proof isn't on me, as I'm not the one making the accusations.

BTW, this Henry Makow guy is a total AFC - he went overseas to find a bride who later dumped him.

 

[Joe The Homophobe]

Originally posted by Derek Flint

BTW, this Henry Makow guy is a total AFC - he went overseas to find a bride who later dumped him.

he admits he was an afc because he says he was brainwashed by feminism and it took him a long time to recover. It is better to fail and then recover than to keep on failing which is the sin of most afcs.

 

[slack]

Derek is skeptical of this site because it has the look and tone of similar sites that are garbage.

Conspiracy theories can sound very legitimate because they pull together truths that are not necessarily related and present them in a larger context as being related. They also tend to omit facts that go against them. The theories are often vague enough to apply to any situation that happens. If you want to convince someone of your idea, whether you're left wing, right wing, or neither, that's an effective but dishonest way to do it.

It's amazing how eager people are to believe in these kinds of things. And yes, the burden of proof IS on those who make the claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have to convince me and any other impartial person that you're correct.

 

[Android]

Why can't we all just be pro-people? Peoplism. Yeah, I'm a peoplist.

"We have been conditioned to scoff at the mention of conspiracy The idea that people might plan something without telling the intended victims is much too farfetched! Nor would they ever disguise their aim! My purpose is not to convert you to my view. Rather, I want you to seek information that either confirms or refutes it."

Makow seems decent to me, even though he sounds like a zealous, bigotted ass.

 

[npina]

web site sux

this guy is against sex. and thus invalidates anything he says. maybe he's been neutered?

 

[Derek Flint]

I've been around for 45 years, and have yet to see any of these types of conspiracy theories come to fruition.

That's why I'm skeptical.

The fact that these theories are usually being spouted from fringe elements also go hand-in-hand.

Does that mean that none of them are true?

No.

I think that the 1996 jetliner crash (Flight 800) may not have been an accident, nor was the November 2001 jet crash in NY.

But I need to be conviced with facts, and not by people who use questionable tactics to "convince" others of their theory.

When people engage in such tactics, it's usually a sign of dishonesty or just not having the facts to back up their claims.

It's like the wannabe PUA at the bar who fabricates stories about himself in order to PU a woman.

The truth doesn't need to be "massaged" to be convincing.

Simply put, these consipiracy theories and such require lots of cooperation and lots of silence and cover-up by the numerous parties involved, which is next to impossible.

Many of them don't pass the logic test either when they are put under the microscope.

Sit in on a development meeting with a bunch of software engineers and watch them debate over something simple for an hour because of their ego's or whatever.

Getting 5 programmers to agree to something simple can be a big hassle - imagine trying to get dozens or even hundred's of high-ranking big-wigs or whoever is allegdly involved to put ego's and self-interest's aside to pull off something like covering up an alien spacecraft crashing on Earth or 9-11 or whatever is impossible, again due to ego's, self-interests or whatever.

Again, almost all of this stuff just doesn't pass the logic test.

That's also why most of this stuff is dismissed so readily and why mostly the lunatic fringe is pushing it.

 

[jprjrjr]

Originally posted by Derek Flint
I've been around for 45 years, and have yet to see any of these types of conspiracy theories come to fruition.

That's why I'm skeptical.

The fact that these theories are usually being spouted from fringe elements also go hand-in-hand.

Does that mean that none of them are true?

No.

I think that the 1996 jetliner crash (Flight 800) may not have been an accident, nor was the November 2001 jet crash in NY.

But I need to be conviced with facts, and not by people who use questionable tactics to "convince" others of their theory.

When people engage in such tactics, it's usually a sign of dishonesty or just not having the facts to back up their claims.

It's like the wannabe PUA at the bar who fabricates stories about himself in order to PU a woman.

The truth doesn't need to be "massaged" to be convincing.

Simply put, these consipiracy theories and such require lots of cooperation and lots of silence and cover-up by the numerous parties involved, which is next to impossible.

Many of them don't pass the logic test either when they are put under the microscope.

Sit in on a development meeting with a bunch of software engineers and watch them debate over something simple for an hour because of their ego's or whatever.

Getting 5 programmers to agree to something simple can be a big hassle - imagine trying to get dozens or even hundred's of high-ranking big-wigs or whoever is allegdly involved to put ego's and self-interest's aside to pull off something like covering up an alien spacecraft crashing on Earth or 9-11 or whatever is impossible, again due to ego's, self-interests or whatever.

Again, almost all of this stuff just doesn't pass the logic test.

That's also why most of this stuff is dismissed so readily and why mostly the lunatic fringe is pushing it.

The "lunatic fringe" is subjective. A lot of people or groups who were once thought to be fringe elements turned out to be right.

 

[Derek Flint]

I'm watching the History channel right now and it's about Nostradamus and how easily his writings are being perceived to be what people want them to be.

They just talked about how Nostradamus predicted 9-11, and what a brilliant prophet he was, but then they had Penn & Teller on saying if Nostradamus so accurately predicted the events of 9-11, why didn't anyone ever talk about his prediction before it (9-11) happened, and not after?


And, if you can give me some examples of the fringe element turning out to be right, I'll be more than happy to hear you out, as long as you don't mind having the examples you provide being looked at with a skeptical eye and possibly being dissected.

And please, use some reasonbly credible sources when making your claimes.

 

[Coolage]

no offense, but the international banking conspiracy needs some hard evidence. also september 11 killed some high level investment bankers. maybe they tried to take down the conspiracy?

I agree with some of his criticisms but come on.

 

[MetalFortress]

Originally posted by Create Reality
Hes just strongly religous, thats all. He makes valid points about the male sex drive though.

If he's so strongly religious, why is he ignoring the Bible's calls for married people to have lots and LOTS of sex? According to the Bible, sex is not just a physical, but also a spiritual and emotional connection between a man and his wife, as well as being the way to procreate. God wanted people to populate the earth fast... so why not make sex one of earth's greatest pleasures? That'll convince people to populate the earth fast.

This guy is absolutely insane. Most of his advice regarding women is good, but his conspiracy theories are psychotic.

 

[nishbuk]

Originally posted by TillTheEndOfTime
That is wildly hypocritical.

You're basically say, "I'm right and I don't have to prove myself, but you do."

Not an acceptable argument. Sorry.

What? You can't disprove a negative dude.

What you are saying is, "I'm making a claim. And I haven't presented evidence for this claim, but you can't disprove it, so it MUST have some credibility."
That's totally illogical.
If you are going to make a claim which has no outworldy direct support, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on you. Until then, Aucum's razor holds true.

It's just like "Innocent until proven guilty". If a prosecutor makes a claim that someone is guilty. Just because there is nothing to contradict it, does NOT make it true. The prosecutor has to provide direct evidence which shows the suspects guilt.

In this case, the suspect is the idea that the Illuminati, and Free masons have plotted to take over the world. The prosecutor is you. The burden of proof is on you.

I don't think you've ever been part of competitive debate, and I'm not trying to talk down to you, just give you some more information. Let me point you toward a recipe for reasoned debate put together by an accomplished debator:
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=324134

By your argument then, I could make any claim, and if you don't disprove it, then it's true? what? That doesn't make any sense.

Okay how about:
Evolution never occurred, neither did divine creation. Instead a race of aliens from a distant planet genetically enhanced a sub-race and implanted that race on earth so that one day they could harvest us as slaves.

Now, there is nothing in worldly observation which goes against what I'm saying. But that doesn't make it anymore true. The fact is, I would have to provide direct evidence to lend this theory credence. The evidence would have to be such that it is VERY Unlikely that there is any other possible cause.

Apply that logic to your argument:

"The Illuminati, Knights Templar, and free masons have been plotting to instill a totalitarian government on earth for as long as society has been around. Eventually the entire race will sucuumb to this, and we will be enslaved."

outworldly, there is nothing that goes against this argument, but that does not make it true. Aucum's razor still holds. And you have to provide evidence.

Now, I'm not saying the either of the above possibilities is FALSE. I'm just saying that they are both just possibilities, with just as much credit as any other possibility would have if it were brought to the table.

 

[Derek Flint]

So your aunt knew there were bombs placed in the building based on what?

Speculation?

Again, the facts simply don't back it up, nor does it pass the logic test.

Let's go even further: Why would there be bombs placed inside the buildings, and by whom?

 

[Joe The Homophobe]

Derek Flint seems to be the only person left that still believes that 911 wasn't an inside job. In a zogby poll last year HALF OF NEW YORKERS said there is a government coverup so not even New Yorkers are as gullible as Derek Flint!

"Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals"
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Derek claims to have been around for 45 years and not seen anything, maybe he forgot the following.

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

more.......http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

killing american civilians in order to provoke a war with another country, now where have I seen that before??? (911 *cough*). Of course you all seen the news and know that the Iraq war is a fraud, they have been exposed as hypocrites and lairs. There were no WMD's, it was all a lie, Iraq had no ties to the terrorists of 911 who most of them were Saudis (bush's friends).

 

[Derek Flint]

And a large percentage of the French and Germans thinks the US was responsible for 9-11

So?

Is there any factual evidence to back that up?

No.

Just speculation and innuendo.

And "Operation Northwoods" is a Red-Herring that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Again, people will believe what they choose to, even if there isn't any hard evidence.

You can engage in all the mental masturbation you want, but it doesn't change facts.

Again, I've asked for motives as to why the US would plan and carry out the 9-11 attacks, but no answer as it doesn't pass the logic test, plain and simple, and, carrying out a plan like that would take years to plan and execute, and it would take the cooperation and cover-up by hundreds, even thousands of people.

Again, it simply does not pass the logic test, nor can anyone give a reasonable motive for doing so either.

 

[Derek Flint]

"There were no WMD's, it was all a lie, Iraq had no ties to the terrorists of 911 who most of them were Saudis (bush's friends)."

Let's go point by point:

1)There were no WMD"s, it was all a lie.

Not according to the intel of the British, the Russians and the Germans.

Or were they in on it too?

Also, how about the 500 tons of Yellow cake Uranium Iraq had?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

2) Iraq had no ties to the terrorists of 911

Start here:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?ZoomFont=YES

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

Also, Hussien gave refuge to the terrorists involved in the first WTC attacks of 1993

3) Most of them were Saudi's

Irrelevent - they were al-qaeda.
Tim McViegh was an American, so therefore, all Americans are terrorists using your logic?

4) Bush's friends.

Yes, the Saudi's are friends of the US and without them, our economy would go in the tank and chaos would ensue.

Stop listening to people like Michael Moore and start using logic, facts and your brain.

You guys are the best allie that Al-Qaeda could ever have.