What Size Is Our Planet? What Is Climate Change? What Is the Arctic Circle? Are There Hidden Lands?

submitted by Questionable from bitchute.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

The point was to watch the video and decide afterwards. Not to come to a predrawn conclusion.

Lets say the video is fake. Don't you want to understand the opposition better by understanding their talking points?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

The point was to watch the video and decide afterwards.

Those things are already known. We don't need to decide.

Lets say the video is fake.

Yes, let's.

Don't you want to understand the opposition better by understanding their talking points?

Opposition to what?

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

If you can convince people that the world is flat, you can convince them of anything.

Or:

If you can convince people that the world is a globe, you can convince them of anything.

Crater Earth postulates that both are true. From a certain point of view.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

If you can convince people that the world is a globe, you can convince them of anything.

I'm unconvinced that's true.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Correct. As you are an individual, where as I am referring to social control, and influencing the general populous.

"A Person is Smart, People Are Dumb"

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

It's not just that. It's that there's a lot of convincing evidence that the world is an oblate spheroid in orbit about the sun, with the moon in orbit about it.

Because of that you could convince people of that, just with a basic education. But that doesn't mean that you could then convince them of something with no evidence, such as that gods exist.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

All language and dialect has a knock on effect on all other statements. If I can convince you to use a set of words incorrectly, or use faulty logic sets, I can use these as tools, to shift logic across unrelated topics.

Say I redefined God, then I can convince you that God exists. Then at a later time, I change the definition of God back to how I see it. I have now manufactured your consent, and you now believe in my God.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

All language and dialect has a knock on effect on all other statements.

What?

You're saying that if I go to Liverpool and pick up some scouse words, that has some effect on the meaning of everything else I say?

That doesn't sound right.

If I can convince you to use a set of words incorrectly, or use faulty logic sets

Those are two very different things. Using faulty logic is a thinking blunder, that will be corrected when it's pointed out or it's a symptom of a mental disorder such as schizophrenia. Using words incorrectly is nothing of the sort. It might lead to miscommunication, that again, generally can be resolved once you've worked out that you're not using the word exactly the same was as the people you're talking to, but it's not related to thinking the world is flat.

I can use these as tools, to shift logic across unrelated topics.

What tools?

Say I redefined God, then I can convince you that God exists.

Not really. If you defined god as the keyboard I'm using now, then you could convince me that that exists. But that's not convincing me that god exists. It's just the keyboard that exists.

Then at a later time, I change the definition of God back to how I see it.

When you do that, I no longer accept that god exists. Because by redefining a word, you don't change my core beliefs, just the words you're using to describe them.

I have now manufactured your consent, and you now believe in my God.

That's not how believing things works.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

You're saying that if I go to Liverpool and pick up some scouse words, that has some effect on the meaning of everything else I say?

I didn't say that, you did.

If you understand the purpose of abstraction layers in programing, then you can understand the use of abstraction layers in social constructs, and human language.

Example: mRNA messaging treatments are not vaccines. Yet they have convinced you they are. And that is only one level of separation. They do this with other words, with more points of separation, literally changing your thoughts, and convincing you that they are your own. Manufactured consent.

What tools?

Language and skewed logic can be used as tools. How are you not understanding the sentence as written?

That's not how believing things works.

Your beliefs, and understanding of how beliefs 'work' are not a prerequisite for objective reality, or how anything around you works.

You have been intentionally trained to think wrong. ◭

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I didn't say that, you did.

You're saying "All language and dialect has a knock on effect on all other statements."

Scouse is a dialect. So your'e saying it has a knock on effect of all other statements.

That doesn't sound right.

If you understand the purpose of abstraction layers in programing, then you can understand the use of abstraction layers in social constructs, and human language.

What do you think "abstraction layer" means in social constructs?

I can't think of anything in language that is analogous to abstraction layers in programming. The purpose of which is to facilitate refactoring.

Language and skewed logic can be used as tools.

Can they? Can you elaborate on that, perhaps with some concrete examples, so I can understand what you mean by "tool" and "skewed logic" here?

How are you not understanding the sentence as written?

Well, I suspect that its because you're on drugs, and just talking absolute bollocks, without any reality to the meaning. But I'm trying to find some sense in it.

Your beliefs, and understanding of how beliefs 'work' are not a prerequisite for objective reality, or how anything around you works.

Continually changing the subject like this makes the conversation really fragmented and difficult to follow. You weren't talking about objective reality. You're talking about using language somehow to manufacture consent without objective reality coming into it.