Watch this.

[scottish]

Re: Watch this.

Novice, don't be silly. You did absolutely nothing wrong. You gave a quick summary in your terms to have people get a small understanding of what the movie was about, which is totally fine in my book.

[Verruckter]

Re: Watch this.

Wow... incredible! Everything fits so perfectly! I'm not sure how much of it is true.. But damn, I'd wish all of it were.

[devonin]

Re: Watch this.

Devonin,
You definitely hold your point within your argument, and probably could hold many points up with your knowledge, but a lot of your argument is also relative.
I'm not going to pick and argue each point, because most of what you said above the combining of America with Mexico and Canada can be found as proven facts among a numerous historians and documents, but after that point, most of which you said is a bit subjective, unless you believe that everything is relative, in which there's no point in arguing at all.

Fair enough

As for Once again, there is more than one standpoint here. Coming from someone who's been a Roman Catholic their entire life, you I'm speaking of, it might be a bit difficult to believe in something that would defy your faith that you have held for twenty something years in a matter of just placing "astrology" as the prime subject in which Christianity, along with a lot of religions before Christianity, are just based off of. You say most of the Christian teachings dismiss things relevant to astrology as conspiracy nonsense, yet the entire religious standpoint only stands by one, and does not allow new ideas or ideas that go against their beliefs within the system. It works that way with every religion. Saying that these "conspiracies" are just a pile of crap, loosely put together to have people who think and make things to "complex" than they really have to be is also far-stretched. Once again, that is really subjective, considering many people consider these conspiracies nothing more than the obvious, and would consider religious standpoints the over thought out complex things. I'm not arguing that either of us are right or wrong on this point, but it can be argued either way, both of which will have people stand behind in. Obviously Christianity will have more people stand behind it because it by far has a higher number of believers. It is the majority, which will preside over and small beliefs a small number of people have any and every time, that is why things get shot down, mainly, conspiracies.

Actually, just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I'm in any way a practicing or believing christian any more. I was simply speaking to the fact that as someone who was -raised- as a christian, I was not raised to believe in anything to do with astrology, and was taught in fact, that things like astrology were silly nonsense.

You have to watch this part before even standing against it. Half of what you said in there has nothing to do with what the movie stated, so you're arguing a point that wasn't even made.

Well, as I said, and as you quoted, I was responding to Novice. And even explicitly stated "I am responding To your [his] synopsis of the movie." Obviously if his synopsis left things out or was inaccurate, the specific points I addressed would likewise be inaccurate as an objection to the movie, but still stand, in my mind, as an objection to the concepts presented.

I'd really suggest watching this movie before arguing it, you lose half of what ever you're arguing when you don't even know what you're arguing. It took you a decent amount of time to write that up I suppose, yet you are so quick to shove it down when you don't even have the feel of what you are arguing against.

See above. I explicitly said that I was responding to the synopsis, not the movie itself. So holding what I say against the movie instead of the synopsis is granting me a larger scope than I intended.

Since when did Novice, or anyone in that case, become the summarized version of the movie? Please watch it, before you start shooting everything down.

Well...he became a summarized version of the movie at about the point where he said "I can already summarize what has happened in the movie."

Once again, you say widely discredited, but by who? When? Why?

I said that I would wager, as is so often the case with conspiracy theorists, that if you looked into them, you would find that they had likely been discredited many times before. Not that they absolutely already had.

Say if one man, was discredited by 50 people over the years. The man's point was to argue that Christianity is wrong. People started reading it, argued, and backed it up with their own evidence to come to the conclusion that he is not credible. The next 49 people to do it all did the same thing. Now lets say the majority of these people are Christians. Now, you're going to tell me, that a source isn't credible because of the people who say it is not? Once again, that is subjective. What you may find to be a "truth", someone else may not, and neither of you have any place in saying one is right and one is wrong in that point.

If you put forward a claim, and someone mounts a body of evidence against your claim, and you cannot address that evidence in a satisfactory way, then you have been discredited regardless of who does or doesn't mount that criticism. If you are going to claim that "truth" is subjective, then any discussion becomes meaningless because you will claim any criticism is just someone's subjective opinion. But uh...the claim you are purporting would also just be someone's subjective opinion also.

I'm not trying to argue you down completely, because there are things in which I also find hard to be true, but I don't eliminate the possibility because someone or something tells me to.

Whereas in addition to not discounting things because someone tells me to, I -also- don't -believe- things just because someone tells me to.

Try to watch the movie, then argue all the points down, and then I probably wouldn't be so upset that someone is completely shutting something down before even knowing what they're talking about. And no, a synopsis is not the same of watching a movie. A synopsis is put into someone else's words, and summarized.

I suppose gauntlet dropped, whether you meant to or not, so I'll give it a viewing, but I suspect most of my counterpoints will be either the same ones I already described, or ones you will just continue to cry 'subjectivity!' over. Also...a synopsis is putting it into someone else's words and summerizing it? And this makes it invalid? You know...somehow I think that the entire content of http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm being made into a 2 hour movie also counts as being put in someone else's words and summarized. So which is it? Valid or invalid?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Watch this.

Part 1: Religion as Astrology Christianity (as someone who has been a roman catholic their entire life) has pretty much nothing in common with astrology. I've never seen numerological theories applied, I've never seen support for things like horoscopes, or ideas that those of us born at certain times have a propensity for certain traits, all of which are hallmarks of astrology. Things like astrology are usually dismissed by christian teachings as occult nonsense. As for christianity "controlling minds" I'd argue that any system that requires you to take concepts on faith has an element of control to it. Christianity wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last.

The concept the video espouses isn't what you presume it to be. It attempts to show fundamental similarities between specific details in various religions, then attributes these similarities to a common ancestry, paegan spiritual beliefs and astrology. The argument against institutional religion is that it perverts the original symbolism to which Christianity owns its ancestry in order to achieve control, by means of tying in to deep seated psychological biases.

Part 2: 9/11 So it was just an unplanned coincidence that planes -also- hit the towers at the exact same time as these "controlled demolitions"?

Not at all. Purportedly, the financing of the terrorists can be traced to US allies, the actual hijackers of the planes are demonstratively not who was assumed, the ability of the planes to hit the tower was based on coordinated events which included US Air force anti-hijacking training exercises scheduled on 9/11 to confuse the defense system, and the force of the planes was physically provable to not be enough to bring down the towers. In addition, the video cites a physics professor who claims that not only do the details not add up, but Thermite explosive compounds can be scientifically proven to have been present in the building.

I'm not sure what "proof" the video went ahead and presented (I remember nebulous claims that some group or another had pointed out that a controlled demolition -could- bring the towers down, but this was theoretical, at the time of construction) but uh...thousands of eyewitnesses, many of whom made corroborating film independant of one another say that it was planes, and I'm rather inclined to believe live footage.

You would interject "Common sense" into a debate that should be framed entirely in physics? No one is arguing that the planes didn't hit the world trade center. I think you are being a little bit more dismissive of arguments than you have room to be.

Part 3: Shadow Government You know who started the idea that "The people who control the bank are secretly controlling America"? At the risk of being Godwin'd that would be Hitler theorising that the Jews controlled America through the banks. I suspect this is why your video implied "nameless people" because if it tried presenting a pipe dream of the nazi party as a reality, they'd justly lose some credibility.

It actually does suggest specifically that the Rockefeller family has something to do with it. In this section I can state based on my knowledge that some of the claims made were overly simplistic and some false, although the federal reserve is a horrible system, just not for the reasons given. In addition the US governments monopolization of currency (AKA, the fiat nature of the dollar) gives individuals within the government amazing power over the economy, and of exactly the wrong sort. I expect the reason the video blames nameless people is because the maker of the video doesn't actually understand economics, although having read enough economic literature I can state that even when people don't have a good grasp of mechanics, they can often still point at least at some problems, albeit with shotgun inaccuracy.

WW1 had the Zimmerman Telegram which may or may not have a) existed or b) been legitimate, but at the same time, there was -plenty- of desire on the part of Americans to enter the war simply because German U-boats were sinking unarmed American merchant ships. President Wilson was opposed to war just on the grounds of the attacks, but the telegram convinced him, but I would argue that even without the telegram, continued attacks from Germany onto American shipping lines would have been enough to push them into the conflict.

The video claims the sinking of the Lusitania was precipitated by both American business interests, which owned the ship and therefore decided its pattern of operation, and by individuals within government.

WW2 had the wacky conspiracy that the Americans were somehow "in" on Pearl Harbour happening, but there are perfectly valid reasons explaining it as well. The US had already stated its support for the Allies against the Axis powers without a formal declaration of war which put them on some bad sides. Also, the US had been placing embargos on Japan over events in China. In addition to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Japanese also launched an attack on various sources of Oil in the Pacific as well, since the American embargoes were putting a stranglehold on oil and scrap metal going into Japan. Realising that the embargoes were capable of ruining the Japanese economy, and fearing an American start to hostilities over what was happening in China, the Japanese launched a full-scale attack against Pearl Harbour. There's not a need or a want for a shadowy conspiracy in these events.

The video argues that actions such as the embargo were made with the intention of precipitating escalation. Unfalsifiable, but not out of step with what anything you just said.

As for the Income tax: The Income tax was first implemented during the civil war, based on Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution which gives congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Which even in this phrasing is violated by virtually all of the current tax system. However, the issue is specifically why a person has to pay taxes, not whether or not congress has power to vote taxes into existence.

Later, the sixteenth amendment to the contitution was ratified and read: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So we see the constitution rewrites itself to avoid an issue that arose from public sentiment. Hardly an iron-clad document. However even this still doesn't mandate that individuals actually pay taxes, it just gives congress the authority to collect them.

What these two things combine to say is this: The government can tax your income, and it is legal for them to do so, and any such tax is uniform across the country.

That third part is false. Actually the entire thing fails to distinguish between local and federal taxation.

As for the claim that you don't have to pay income taxes because "its not against the law to" not pay them...yes it is. The charge is called "Tax Evasion" and interestingly, one of the largest proponants of the "you don't have to pay taxes" movement is currently serving 17 years in prison for, of all things, not paying his taxes. Sounds like its against the law to me.

There's a difference between the law in text and the law in action. You also can't honestly say that punishment -> crime. As a side note, there is a couple in New Hampshire right now under seige by the Feds for tax evasion, even though they said they would pay taxes if the law was just presented which showed they had to do so.

All of the arguments presented against income tax being valid or legal have been shot down in multiple courts multiple times.

Then perhaps the courts are illegitimate.

Economically, they just lose lose lose by inheriting millions of people and very little by way of benefit from that.

You don't understand economics. To be fair, neither does anyone who would advocate government, including the supposed plan in discussion.

You say the video was "backed up very well" but I'd put money on the fact that if you investigated some of their sources you'd find a) That many of the people have been widely discredited over the years and more importantly b) That they all routinely reference each other in their books. If Book A makes a claim, citing proof from book B, and Book B made the claim by citing the proof in Book A, nowhere in there do you find actual proof. As both sets of premises rest on one another, and not on something more concrete.

This is very likely true.

Why does the crazy far-fetched shadow government conspiracyhave to be the correct one, when simple observation holds up the existing theories?

The conspiracy theory in question is actually just the existing theories, plus a few additional purported details.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Watch this.

Yes! A solid minute of militaristic destruction. Yes! And orbital shots of the earth and random nebulas! Yes! Oh man! And CG galaxies! Is there anything this movie doesn't have?

So, it takes about 5 minutes to get to the title card and I've already lost interest. God, now this guy is talking...and talking...and talking...and god, f*ck this movie. Seriously. I'm going back to watching the Root of all Evil. And while Richard Dawkins is my hero and all, he's still kind of an asshole.

[scottish]

Re: Watch this.

I knew Jewpin would.. something like that.
Edit: Actually, thought.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Watch this.

Wow... incredible! Everything fits so perfectly! I'm not sure how much of it is true.. But damn, I'd wish all of it were.

Yeah... that's an issue though. Regarding the whole religion segment, we can't trust the movie completely because this astrology stuff isn't proven to actually be linked to religion, but it's scary how a lot is the same. Though, I don't like to jump to conclusions like the way this video does about certain religions being Exactly based on astrology, I would to also hope that everything said would be true. The facts could be used to seriously put religion out of its place (which I would incredibly love), but they just aren't proven in any way to be facts.

[devonin]

Re: Watch this.

"Truth is stranger than fiction because the truth is under no obligation to be consistant" Samuel Clemens

Despite this, humans are suckers for patterns and narratives, no matter how far fetched. Any story that explains how many unconnected things are in fact connected is automatically appealing to the human love of narrative.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Watch this.

I knew Jewpin would.. something like that.
Edit: Actually, thought.

I finished watching it (wasn't planning to). I have no idea what "part I" had to do with anything aside from being interesting to watch. All of it was fairly interesting, but 1. they included no citations 2. these are some mighty bold claims that the government has been behind nearly all catastrophic events in American history.

They presented a very well thought out conspiracy theory that, despite being ludicrous, is somewhat believable. It presents enough information for the viewer to question what they commonly believe. But, ultimately, without citations and sources, it's all a bunch of hot gas and energy being wasted.

:edit: So, I went to their website, they have a source list. SpooooooO~ky. Must be true then.

[Tps222]

Re: Watch this.

Interesting movie, entertaining at the least.

I laughed at the whole combining of world unions thing into one government. The legitamacy of that is absurd.


EDIT: devonin, look at all physics; everything is based on the hopes of a universal theory. We have no idea if there is one, but we just assume/hope for one because it makes things easier to understand and believe. Attemping the same thing here is merely human nature.

[krazykhalid]

Re: Watch this.

im watching part 2 and so far this is mindblowing

im about 55 minutes in

[hayatewillown]

Re: Watch this.

This is boring.

[Verruckter]

Re: Watch this.

This is boring.

Then get the **** out.

[scottish]

Re: Watch this.

This is boring.

Seriously, why even post when you have absolutely nothing to say.

[Coda375]

Re: Watch this.

Me and my friend watched the first 20 minutes this morning on muh tv, and we're going to finish it up tomorrow.

Thanks for posting it man. Interesting stuff.