majorspark;932078 wrote:You have my argument concerning our involvement in WWI. The dude in the video acts like a loon. Thats right I said it. I agree with him on some points. Mainly WWI. This idea that war is nothing more than corporations pulling the strings for profits is idiocy. People fight wars. They are not just sheep going off to the the slaughter. Most believe in the cause. I don't know about you but I will not kill or die for something I don't believe in.

You think posting someone who has served in the military and his opinion should be without rebuke. History is full of warmongers who donned the uniform. Hitler faced death on the battlefields of WWI. Hitler put his life on the line to over through the German government. Point being not everyone who has been in the shit is right nor does their opinion carry any greater weight in politics. The exception being military tactics on the ground in a current military engagement.

How does that exclude one from being a sheep?

I Wear Pants;932079 wrote:How does that exclude one from being a sheep?

In order for a nation to propagate war most of those that fight it have to have to believe in the cause. They think for themselves as an individual. People are not sheep. Thats why I don't use the word sheeple. People believe what they believe. They may be wrong or misguided. The vast majority of warriors in history killed and died becuase they believed in the cause the were fighting for.

Cleveland Buck;931774 wrote:World War II would have never happened if we didn't get involved in World War I.

Wait what? Germany really never wanted to fight the US in WWII and Japan was our ally in WWI. Only reason Germany declared war on us was because they were allied with Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor(not that they didnt have plans, but it happend much sooner than they wanted). Even still, Wilson played a pretty good mediator between Germany and the rest of Europe after WWI. Without us, Germany would have even been worse off after the treaty.

majorspark;932090 wrote:In order for a nation to propagate war most of those that fight it have to have to believe in the cause. They think for themselves as an individual. People are not sheep. Thats why I don't use the word sheeple. People believe what they believe. They may be wrong or misguided. The vast majority of warriors in history killed and died becuase they believed in the cause the were fighting for.

And people can be manipulated into believing what other people want them to believe.

I Wear Pants;932321 wrote:And people can be manipulated into believing what other people want them to believe.

Particularly if a single entity is responsible for writing the education material that people use in order to form their belief.

I Wear Pants;932321 wrote:And people can be manipulated into believing what other people want them to believe.

True but people still choose to believe what they want.

O-Trap;932361 wrote:Particularly if a single entity is responsible for writing the education material that people use in order to form their belief.

The internet makes it a lot harder for single entities to control materials people use to form their beliefs.

majorspark;932367 wrote:True but people still choose to believe what they want.

I don't think belief is a choice.

Suppose I tell you that I have a full-grown elephant living in my size-12 shoe. Suppose I tell you that if you can truly believe me, I will give you $10K. Now, suppose I also tell you that I'm going to kill you if you believe either way incorrectly.

You have incentive to believe me, but you have (probably) more incentive to be right, which means that no matter what you want to believe or profess, you're going to choose what you ACTUALLY believe, because the laws of physics learned in school tell you that you cannot put a several-ton elephant into a size-12 shoe, regardless of what you might want to believe.

majorspark;932371 wrote:The internet makes it a lot harder for single entities to control materials people use to form their beliefs.

The Internet wasn't around in the early 1900s. Also, while the Internet makes it harder, if the sources on said Internet are predominantly people who have been persuaded to believe a certain way, it doesn't fix the problem.

O-Trap;932386 wrote:I don't think belief is a choice.

God says otherwise.

majorspark;932397 wrote:God says otherwise.

No. Mistaken interpreters do.

majorspark;932367 wrote:True but people still choose to believe what they want.

Not really. Did you choose to believe or not believe in Santa or God? Probably not, beliefs aren't like facts or ideas. We form beliefs out of our interpretations of facts and assessment of situations. If we're presented skewed facts we can form skewed beliefs.

I Wear Pants;932404 wrote:Not really. Did you choose to believe or not believe in Santa or God?

Yes.

I Wear Pants;932404 wrote:Probably not, beliefs aren't like facts or ideas. We form beliefs out of our interpretations of facts and assessment of situations. If we're presented skewed facts we can form skewed beliefs.

Your right. If one gets skewed facts that individual can't be held accountable for his/her actions.

You did not choose to believe in God. You acquired facts and made a decision based on them. I believe the theory of gravity is true because of the evidence I've been presented. I can't just choose to not believe it without lying about what I believe. I've seen the theory and the evidence of said theory, my brain puts the two together and accepts them.

You believe or don't believe in God because of the evidence and arguments presented which you either accept or reject.

Note that the "you" is meant as "one"/"a person" not necessarily you so please don't take it as me telling you what you believe.

O-Trap;932361 wrote:Particularly if a single entity is responsible for writing the education material that people use in order to form their belief.

O-Trap;932386 wrote:I don't think belief is a choice.

If I use something (educational material or otherwise) to form my belief, am I not choosing to believe? Or am I under the mistaken impression that "use" and "form" are verbs in the passive voice?

Just trying to reconcile the two quotes above.

jhay78;932418 wrote:If I use something (educational material or otherwise) to form my belief, am I not choosing to believe? Or am I under the mistaken impression that "use" and "form" are verbs in the passive voice?

Just trying to reconcile the two quotes above.

Use is indeed more passive. Could be that it was dictated to them or they were forced to learn it. Maybe they even chose it because people they respect said that it was the most reliable or credible source.

In any case, the audience is swayed.

In my example, however, I was suggesting that those in the military may not be given choices by their commanders to choose their sources for intelligence. Those sources are used, but they are dictated. It's either 'X' or nothing.

majorspark;932412 wrote:Yes.



Your right. If one gets skewed facts that individual can't be held accountable for his/her actions.

When you were little you said "I think I want to believe in Santa?" or did you just believe in Santa because you were told about him by people you trust?

Could you believe in Santa now if you chose too? I don't think you honestly could.

majorspark;932078 wrote:You have my argument concerning our involvement in WWI. The dude in the video acts like a loon. Thats right I said it. I agree with him on some points. Mainly WWI. This idea that war is nothing more than corporations pulling the strings for profits is idiocy. People fight wars. They are not just sheep going off to the the slaughter. Most believe in the cause. I don't know about you but I will not kill or die for something I don't believe in.

You think posting someone who has served in the military and his opinion should be without rebuke. History is full of warmongers who donned the uniform. Hitler faced death on the battlefields of WWI. Hitler put his life on the line to over through the German government. Point being not everyone who has been in the **** is right nor does their opinion carry any greater weight in politics. The exception being military tactics on the ground in a current military engagement.

The guy on youtube is an actor...re-enacting a speech given by Smedley Butler. So to say he is "looney" is more of a jab at the actor. Google Smedley Darlington Butler and read about his military career.. The speech was given in 1935. At that time, the man was the most decorated Marine ever. And that is my point.

He believed in "the cause" for 3 decades. And then he re-evaluated the real reasons why he had fought in these wars.

Of all his points....the most telling and chilling.....describing to a tee the character of the financiers of these wars....the chickenhawks....who would never as much as get their pants dirty fighting with guns in a swamp....let alone risk dying. Dying in a war are for the "state sycophants", not the shrewd and clever businessmen that orchestrated the ruse in the first place.

Woodrow was not the first president to lie for reasons in entering wars. There's always a pattern. LBJ was every bit as bad as Bush..lying through his teeth in order to justify war. The Gulf of Tomkin Resolution was as big a whopper as Saddam's WMD. And the band continues to play on.

I Wear Pants;932404 wrote:Not really. Did you choose to believe or not believe in Santa or God? Probably not, beliefs aren't like facts or ideas. We form beliefs out of our interpretations of facts and assessment of situations. If we're presented skewed facts we can form skewed beliefs.

Did you choose to believe that people are unable to choose what they believe, or did you form that belief from your interpretation of some mythical facts somewhere that no one has heard of?

Another point- we can take facts and skew them to fit our presuppositions. We can take clear evidence and twist and distort it to fit our preconceived worldviews. Those are both choices.

Unless you want to deconstruct everything and assign human beings the mental capacities of robots.

majorspark;932028 wrote:Statements like this make you look like a loon. If banks had the power to order Wilson to enter the war, why not do so in 1914 and maximize profits? Wilson asked congress to declare war. He and the US congress are the only ones who gave the order. Your ilk never cease to amaze me. Government just can't be blamed. It must be that government was merely following orders from some behind the curtain evil Jewish capitalist banker seeking to maximize his profits.

You left that part out of it.

Footwedge;932650 wrote:The guy on youtube is an actor...re-enacting a speech given by Smedley Butler. So to say he is "looney" is more of a jab at the actor. Google Smedley Darlington Butler and read about his military career.. The speech was given in 1935. At that time, the man was the most decorated Marine ever. And that is my point.

Thats why I said the dude in the video acts like a loon. Not the speech was looney. I agree with parts of it. I already stated our involvement in WWI was unnecessary and a waste of lives. I just don't buy into the conspiracy bullshit. Politicians are just puppets and their puppet masters ( the banks, the Rothschilds, the Jews, the Bildebergs, etc.) are pulling the strings.

Footwedge;932650 wrote:He believed in "the cause" for 3 decades. And then he re-evaluated the real reasons why he had fought in these wars.

Many other decorated military men believed in the cause. They believed in the cause their whole life and Butlers opinion holds no greater merit. Nor anyone else for that matter. You find these differences among those who fought in any war. Todays wars are no different.

Footwedge;932650 wrote:Of all his points....the most telling and chilling.....describing to a tee the character of the financiers of these wars....the chickenhawks....who would never as much as get their pants dirty fighting with guns in a swamp....let alone risk dying. Dying in a war are for the "state sycophants", not the shrewd and clever businessmen that orchestrated the ruse in the first place.

Foot take a long look at history. You will find many of those in power trumpeting war were warriors themselves. Riding the glory of their service into places of power. Hitler was just one recent example that I gave. The bravehawks push war too.

Footwedge;932650 wrote:Woodrow was not the first president to lie for reasons in entering wars. There's always a pattern. LBJ was every bit as bad as Bush..lying through his teeth in order to justify war. The Gulf of Tomkin Resolution was as big a whopper as Saddam's WMD. And the band continues to play on.

I won't go as far as to say all of these guys were lying in every instance. Misguided and wrong information perhaps. Bold face lies across the board possibly. Bankers ordering them into action, looney.

jhay78;932705 wrote:You left that part out of it.

LOL! I actually did consider adding it. I know how these conspiracy people think.

O-Trap;932399 wrote:No. Mistaken interpreters do.

I am not going to take this to a religious discussion. So I will leave it at this. You and I likely agree. A common theme in our recent discussions. I think we are confusing the thought with semantics. Belief vs accept.

My point was humans make all kinds of choices in this world. They are accountable for those choices.

A better example might be, I have never made a choice to love my mother. I simply do. Even in times when I have not wanted to (likely because I was being an asshole) I would have been lying to myself if I said I did not love her.

Maybe I'm not explaining it well or maybe I'm a moron, hell both could be true.

I Wear Pants;932923 wrote:A better example might be, I have never made a choice to love my mother. I simply do. Even in times when I have not wanted to (likely because I was being an asshole) I would have been lying to myself if I said I did not love her.

Maybe I'm not explaining it well or maybe I'm a moron, hell both could be true.

I attempted to explain it in the following way: You can be motivated to profess one thing or another, but if the time should come where believing what is correct is more important than believing what is preferable, you show what you actually believe. See the example below.

O-Trap;932386 wrote:Suppose I tell you that I have a full-grown elephant living in my size-12 shoe. Suppose I tell you that if you can truly believe me, I will give you $10K. Now, suppose I also tell you that I'm going to kill you if you believe either way incorrectly.

You have incentive to believe me, but you have (probably) more incentive to be right, which means that no matter what you want to believe or profess, you're going to choose what you ACTUALLY believe, because the laws of physics learned in school tell you that you cannot put a several-ton elephant into a size-12 shoe, regardless of what you might want to believe.