[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Sun Oct 7 20:55:42 UTC 2007
On 10/7/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> Stefano Vaj Wrote:
> > Let us say, however, that "some" kind of involvement, at "some" level,
> > seems much more likely a scenario than the opposite.
> As there is no rational reason or the smallest particle of evidence to
> believe in such a thing I can only conclude that you received this
> information from the Blessed Virgin in a dream, or perhaps it was
> miraculously spelled out in pepperonis in a pizza that you bought.
Why, I say that "some" involvement (the degree, level and nature
thereof remaining debatable) seems very plausible. You say that you
know for a fact, with a 100% certainty, that no such thing, in any
sense whatsoever, could ever have happened.
Yet, you may well be right, and I may be wrong, and I do not believe
that this is the right place to discuss the at least circumstantial
evidence that encourages me - as well as a significant chunk of even
the American public! - to think that a more than reasonable doubt
But were I professing such an unwaivering article of faith as you do,
I would certainly not characterise any opposite position as
"information received from the Virgin Mary" for fear of ridicule.
Certainly, the burden of proof is on the official version, not on
those remarking where it may be unsatisfactory or inconsistent or
insufficient. On the contrary, the number alternative hypotheses, even
when they are mutually exclusive, reinforces the idea that such
official version is far from being "the truth, all the truth, nothing
but the truth".
> There is stupid and then there is Mega Stupid, and that particular
> conspiracy theory is Mega Stupid!
The problem with conspiracies is that conspiracies sometimes... do
exist. What is far-fetched and delusional is the idea of an
omnipotence of conspirators. On the contrary, it can probably be said
that for any events, 9/11 included, there are forces and powers who
are directly or indirectly benefitted and other who are harmed.
> Yes I
> understand it feels very good to imagine that your political opponents are
> capable of such enormous depravity, and yes it really does make one feel
> wonderfully virtuous by comparison,
A "political opponent" such as bin Laden, for instance?
Whose ambiguous statements, by the way, never included the smallest
evidence that he was actually informed of the attacks beforehand, or
that details that only the organisers might know were available to
More information about the extropy-chat