By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
You are wrong. You said the theories of space time hadn't been proven when clearly they have to a reasonable degree. There will be other new discoveries but that wasn't what you said. You then used that false statement to construct a false equivalence to conspiracy theories.
Writing three paragraphs of ranting doesn't mean your any less wrong that you were before.
I know of MK Ultra. Using something done nearly 60 years ago in one country to attempt to justify anything else is a false premise. You cannot construct such a correlation. Just because A happened it doesn't mean B happened. You need evidence, something you've not posted at all. Not one shred.
SB
If you are going to quote me then please quote me with accuracy, what i said was......"Most of the premise of space and time that is so widely accepted is no more than theory, a thought someone had, there is no proof for or against!" As you can see I used the word "Most" that does not imply all theories have been or indeed are wrong does it!!
You also have completely taken the context out of me using Icke's theory/opinion that 5G and Coronavirus are connected as your assumption that I too share this theory as truth is wrong, it was used as an example of anyone can make a theory on whatever subject they wish, it matters not if its wrong or right!
You accuse me of you using something that was done 60 odd years ago, I hadn't realised that you imposed time restrictions on when one could use an example of a conspiracy theory that had been proven, maybe even more so when you were so happily throwing Einsteinian theories at me when they were developed well over the 60 year mark themselves and no, before you start I am not denying that his theories have not been fully prove in more modern times!
"Writing three paragraphs of ranting doesn't mean your any less wrong that you were before." Oh you do have to be condescending, there is no denying the proof of that eh!!
-2
This is good news on 13:11 - May 4 with 1127 views
If you are going to quote me then please quote me with accuracy, what i said was......"Most of the premise of space and time that is so widely accepted is no more than theory, a thought someone had, there is no proof for or against!" As you can see I used the word "Most" that does not imply all theories have been or indeed are wrong does it!!
You also have completely taken the context out of me using Icke's theory/opinion that 5G and Coronavirus are connected as your assumption that I too share this theory as truth is wrong, it was used as an example of anyone can make a theory on whatever subject they wish, it matters not if its wrong or right!
You accuse me of you using something that was done 60 odd years ago, I hadn't realised that you imposed time restrictions on when one could use an example of a conspiracy theory that had been proven, maybe even more so when you were so happily throwing Einsteinian theories at me when they were developed well over the 60 year mark themselves and no, before you start I am not denying that his theories have not been fully prove in more modern times!
"Writing three paragraphs of ranting doesn't mean your any less wrong that you were before." Oh you do have to be condescending, there is no denying the proof of that eh!!
Getting annoyed at this now. You are the second person in this thread to claim the use of the word "most" or "potentially" somehow lessens the meaning of your sentence. That is simply not true and the implication was very clear. You attempted to construct a false equivalence between not everything in theoretical physics being proven meaning that conspiracy theories can be correct - this is a deeply flawed equivalence.
"anyone can make a theory on whatever subject they wish, it matters not if its wrong or right!"
This is where we disagree. If the theory is demonstrably wrong and it causes harm then it shouldn't be given platforms and it does matter a lot if it's right or wrong. How would you feel if someone in your family died from implementing some medical advice from a theory on the internet? I am sure you would worry about if things are right or wrong then.
Of course there is a time limit on what you can cite. The governments of 60 years ago are not those of today. Should we go back 1000 years and look at what the British did then? Where is your cut-off? Applying your logic then there is no future point at which anything a governmental body says can be taken as truthful. Einsteinian theories are nothing like conspiracy theories - they are observable to anyone in the universe from any vantage point and are not human constructs but constructs of the natural processes in nature.
It's not condescending, it's pointing out the huge flaws in your position and the damage they can cause.
SB
1
This is good news on 13:11 - May 4 with 1125 views
I think you are maybe getting side tracked here Stokie.
It is possible to reject all the cr@p that David Icke speaks and not wish to see him banned on the grounds that drawing a line is near impossible.
Similar argument against banning say EDL marches or Nick Griffin on QT.
Guy is a full on loon, no argument there. But on what grounds are banning his platform justified? The fact he repeats disgusting racist lines? Untruths?
And who decides what is an untruth?
It does leave me a little uncomfortable in terms of where it might go. Unlike our press, the interweb allows minority (and sometimes loons) views a platform which is a good thing I'd argue.
Lots of things to debate, even when the material taken down is patently nonsense, offensive or dangerous.
Nick Griffin on QT is possibly the closest in terms of an analogy that works for me, however these are private companies enforcing their terms of service.
David Icke and people are free to set up their own sites and host their own content if they so wish. What they are not entitled to is a ready made audience and promotion of their views.
If people feel strongly about it, they can refuse to use their services and will have to go elsewhere. As Mullet says, what they are doing is akin to Phil swinging his banhammer on here.
There are a few places on the internet with almost no moderation or "censorship". However what you tend to find is that those places very quickly turn into just racist bile.
For an example of this, check out 4chans or 8chans political board.
Nick Griffin on QT is possibly the closest in terms of an analogy that works for me, however these are private companies enforcing their terms of service.
David Icke and people are free to set up their own sites and host their own content if they so wish. What they are not entitled to is a ready made audience and promotion of their views.
If people feel strongly about it, they can refuse to use their services and will have to go elsewhere. As Mullet says, what they are doing is akin to Phil swinging his banhammer on here.
There are a few places on the internet with almost no moderation or "censorship". However what you tend to find is that those places very quickly turn into just racist bile.
For an example of this, check out 4chans or 8chans political board.
I'm not sure the QT analogy is quite right, as QT is an interactive programme where assertions can be challenged by the host and other members, whereas Youtube/Twitter etc are places where people can put up their own videos and the only challenge can be done in the comments.
I personally don't think having Griffin on QT was a bad thing as his views were challenged robustly and he was made to look an idiot, particularly over his comments on homosexuality. Also, I don't see how they could continue ignoring the BNP when they had won seats in recent EU elections. The problem is that the programme doesn't challenge or rebut other politicians regularly enough.
0
This is good news on 14:26 - May 4 with 1070 views
Getting annoyed at this now. You are the second person in this thread to claim the use of the word "most" or "potentially" somehow lessens the meaning of your sentence. That is simply not true and the implication was very clear. You attempted to construct a false equivalence between not everything in theoretical physics being proven meaning that conspiracy theories can be correct - this is a deeply flawed equivalence.
"anyone can make a theory on whatever subject they wish, it matters not if its wrong or right!"
This is where we disagree. If the theory is demonstrably wrong and it causes harm then it shouldn't be given platforms and it does matter a lot if it's right or wrong. How would you feel if someone in your family died from implementing some medical advice from a theory on the internet? I am sure you would worry about if things are right or wrong then.
Of course there is a time limit on what you can cite. The governments of 60 years ago are not those of today. Should we go back 1000 years and look at what the British did then? Where is your cut-off? Applying your logic then there is no future point at which anything a governmental body says can be taken as truthful. Einsteinian theories are nothing like conspiracy theories - they are observable to anyone in the universe from any vantage point and are not human constructs but constructs of the natural processes in nature.
It's not condescending, it's pointing out the huge flaws in your position and the damage they can cause.
SB
Maybe in your obviously higher intellectual eyes there is no equivalence, but then I was not trying to equate anything, maybe my wording did not come across right, but it still remains you have taken me out of context and totally missed the point I was making which is/was any fool can develop a theory and if it can never be proven or disproven it still in its own context is a theory, my use of space and time theories was there because given any one subject in this world space and time is the one that is most theorised!
The crux of the matter is...its my own opinion that if a theory can never be proven as wrong there is always a chance it is right no matter how stupid said theory is!
My use of the word "most" was not to lessen any meaning to anything, it was used in its own context which is meaning given all the theories ever made on the subject most have been wrong, in layman's terms "a few clever ba*tards got it spot on"
"It's not condescending, it's pointing out the huge flaws in your position and the damage they can cause."
I think maybe your frustration leads you to become more condescending and belittling than you realise!
-3
This is good news on 15:58 - May 4 with 1050 views
"You're going to wake up one day and there's going to be no David Icke's in this world. No alternative point of view. And your phone is going to be tracking you everywhere. And you're going to have points scoring how good or bad you've been. And your rights are going to be taken away accordingly." The above extract is lifted from this video:
Its not my theory to provide data for, I'm merely pointing out that a theory no matter how plausible it may be is just basically one persons opinion, their notion of how something can connect and work!
No. You are clearly not at all scientific trying to comment on what you believe a scientific theory is.
A theory needs some evidence and explanation. It is not good enough for me to say I have a scientific theory that you are in fact a red badger living in the Antarctic and because I have proposed the theory it is valid and I should be allowed to spread it as a plausible theory.
For a start, there is no scientific evidence there are red badgers living in the Antarctic and there is plenty of evidence that there are not, could not be and that even if there was a possibility they could not use the internet. Indeed, as stupid as your posts are, that no non-human animal could articulate them in written English.
There is as much plausibility to Icke's rantings as that.
Now add the dangerous results you have a lunatic inciting terrorism.
Would you argue the same right to someone giving a rational argument that incites a terrorist attack based on race or religion?
"You're going to wake up one day and there's going to be no David Icke's in this world. No alternative point of view. And your phone is going to be tracking you everywhere. And you're going to have points scoring how good or bad you've been. And your rights are going to be taken away accordingly." The above extract is lifted from this video:
A certain infamous quote from Mick McCarthy springs to mind.
The issue is more about limit to freedom of speech.
There has to be a limit for a reasonable world. Allowing incitement to hatred is wrong.
The problem is not that Icke holds ridiculous clearly demonstrably wrong views. It is the fact he is inciting people to do dangerous things based on it.
Again, does your allowance of all things mean you are happy to have an Islamic hate preacher continue to indoctrinate people freely?
No. You are clearly not at all scientific trying to comment on what you believe a scientific theory is.
A theory needs some evidence and explanation. It is not good enough for me to say I have a scientific theory that you are in fact a red badger living in the Antarctic and because I have proposed the theory it is valid and I should be allowed to spread it as a plausible theory.
For a start, there is no scientific evidence there are red badgers living in the Antarctic and there is plenty of evidence that there are not, could not be and that even if there was a possibility they could not use the internet. Indeed, as stupid as your posts are, that no non-human animal could articulate them in written English.
There is as much plausibility to Icke's rantings as that.
Now add the dangerous results you have a lunatic inciting terrorism.
Would you argue the same right to someone giving a rational argument that incites a terrorist attack based on race or religion?
Oh you are in SB's club of the condescending, how cool!
Oh you are in SB's club of the condescending, how cool!
This thread is going quite poorly for you isn't it?
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
"You're going to wake up one day and there's going to be no David Icke's in this world. No alternative point of view. And your phone is going to be tracking you everywhere. And you're going to have points scoring how good or bad you've been. And your rights are going to be taken away accordingly." The above extract is lifted from this video:
A certain infamous quote from Mick McCarthy springs to mind.
This implies Icke is the only type of alternative. It's that sort of limited, binary thinking which is the undoing of racists, conspiracists and the other assorted incels and pondlife he scoops up.
By making it him against them, his followers make it us against them and ironically shut down all debate.
The fact three or four of you have now tried this angle and come undone spectacularly is more telling than anything else. It sounds nothing like China. You don't disappear in the night for watching an Icke video, your family do not become shunned etc. Once again this deluge of baseless misdirection only adds weight to the idea it's right to deplatform these people.
This thread is going quite poorly for you isn't it?
Not at all, none of you will ever stop me from having my opinion on things (nor would I ever try to stop you having yours) no matter how hard you ALL try to be condescending and belittling, everyone of you wishes to bombard me with science fact when my whole point wasn't even about that, its about for every theory that's right there are loads that are wrong and people can come up whatever theories they like, at no point did I say I agree with David Icke's theory about 5G and Coronavirus but because I chose to defend someone's right to develop their own theory no matter how absurd it makes me wrong, carry on people I have all day!
Not at all, none of you will ever stop me from having my opinion on things (nor would I ever try to stop you having yours) no matter how hard you ALL try to be condescending and belittling, everyone of you wishes to bombard me with science fact when my whole point wasn't even about that, its about for every theory that's right there are loads that are wrong and people can come up whatever theories they like, at no point did I say I agree with David Icke's theory about 5G and Coronavirus but because I chose to defend someone's right to develop their own theory no matter how absurd it makes me wrong, carry on people I have all day!
You keep saying "theory" when what I think you may mean is "hypothesis". They are two vastly differently things, scientifically speaking.
For example, the idea that microorganisms cause some diseases is "Germ Theory". Now you won't find many people around who disagree with the that theory because of the sheer weight of science behind it.
Now the hypothesis that 5G and Coronavirus are some how related is just that, a hypothesis. It's certainly nowhere near the theory level.
Not at all, none of you will ever stop me from having my opinion on things (nor would I ever try to stop you having yours) no matter how hard you ALL try to be condescending and belittling, everyone of you wishes to bombard me with science fact when my whole point wasn't even about that, its about for every theory that's right there are loads that are wrong and people can come up whatever theories they like, at no point did I say I agree with David Icke's theory about 5G and Coronavirus but because I chose to defend someone's right to develop their own theory no matter how absurd it makes me wrong, carry on people I have all day!
I have a theory that all left handed people are the devils children.
Just you watch, when there are less left handed people in the world things will be better.
If I am not provided an opportunity to spread my theory on each and every platform that I choose, then that will simply be more proof of an authoritarian cabal of left handers preventing free speech.
That theory has equivalence to the nature of the balance of matter, anti-matter and neutrino/anti-neutrino interaction.
Not at all, none of you will ever stop me from having my opinion on things (nor would I ever try to stop you having yours) no matter how hard you ALL try to be condescending and belittling, everyone of you wishes to bombard me with science fact when my whole point wasn't even about that, its about for every theory that's right there are loads that are wrong and people can come up whatever theories they like, at no point did I say I agree with David Icke's theory about 5G and Coronavirus but because I chose to defend someone's right to develop their own theory no matter how absurd it makes me wrong, carry on people I have all day!
With all due respect (which is none) it's easy to be condescending and belittling when confronted with such utter bo-llox.
If you're going to think and say such ridiculous things, you probably need to develop a thicker skin.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
The issue is more about limit to freedom of speech.
There has to be a limit for a reasonable world. Allowing incitement to hatred is wrong.
The problem is not that Icke holds ridiculous clearly demonstrably wrong views. It is the fact he is inciting people to do dangerous things based on it.
Again, does your allowance of all things mean you are happy to have an Islamic hate preacher continue to indoctrinate people freely?
Is David Icke inciting people to do dangerous things? Is he actually telling people to go out and destroy 5G masts?
I believe David Icke's theory that 5G is responsible for the Corona virus is based on this video by the former president of Microsoft Canada Frank Clegg where he questions the safety of wireless tecnology, in particular 5G.
Even if 5G is not connected to the recent pandemic i still think we should all be a little bit concerned as to the safety of 5G.
Is David Icke inciting people to do dangerous things? Is he actually telling people to go out and destroy 5G masts?
I believe David Icke's theory that 5G is responsible for the Corona virus is based on this video by the former president of Microsoft Canada Frank Clegg where he questions the safety of wireless tecnology, in particular 5G.
Even if 5G is not connected to the recent pandemic i still think we should all be a little bit concerned as to the safety of 5G.
I have a theory that all left handed people are the devils children.
Just you watch, when there are less left handed people in the world things will be better.
If I am not provided an opportunity to spread my theory on each and every platform that I choose, then that will simply be more proof of an authoritarian cabal of left handers preventing free speech.
That theory has equivalence to the nature of the balance of matter, anti-matter and neutrino/anti-neutrino interaction.
Interesting.
You have no respect you people, that's your trouble.
You don't understand the word 'alternative'.
Bat droppings could well be the answer to the virus for all you know, as it has a bat connection. And actually, some people do buy it so that definitely means it has as much credibility as other medicines and isn't at all dangerous:
Is David Icke inciting people to do dangerous things? Is he actually telling people to go out and destroy 5G masts?
I believe David Icke's theory that 5G is responsible for the Corona virus is based on this video by the former president of Microsoft Canada Frank Clegg where he questions the safety of wireless tecnology, in particular 5G.
Even if 5G is not connected to the recent pandemic i still think we should all be a little bit concerned as to the safety of 5G.
[Post edited 4 May 2020 20:33]
"Even if 5G is not connected to the recent pandemic i still think we should all be a little bit concerned as to the safety of 5G."
I can clear this up for you. 5G has absolutely nothing to do with the current novel coronavirus covid 19 and using it as reasoning to push an anti-5G agenda is frankly abhorrent. People are dying.
Is David Icke inciting people to do dangerous things? Is he actually telling people to go out and destroy 5G masts?
I believe David Icke's theory that 5G is responsible for the Corona virus is based on this video by the former president of Microsoft Canada Frank Clegg where he questions the safety of wireless tecnology, in particular 5G.
Even if 5G is not connected to the recent pandemic i still think we should all be a little bit concerned as to the safety of 5G.
[Post edited 4 May 2020 20:33]
Can you tell us what is concerning you with regards to the safety of 5G?
Because if it's the EM radiation it's probably useful to know that visible light is closer to the damaging end (ionising) of the EM spectrum than 5G. In fact you are probably getting a large "dose" of non-ionising EM radiation from your computer monitor reading this post. I take no responsibility for that except to say it won't do you any damage because non-ionising radiation doesn't do damage in the same way as ionising radiation such as x-rays.
The only way non-ionising radiation can cause problems is through heat and the power of 5G transmitters is orders of magnitude below what is required (from the top of my head it's something like a factor of 1000 to weak).
If you are worried about 5G you probably shouldn't go out in the daytime or use the lights in your house or post on here in front of your monitor. Better to be safe than sorry.
"Even if 5G is not connected to the recent pandemic i still think we should all be a little bit concerned as to the safety of 5G."
I can clear this up for you. 5G has absolutely nothing to do with the current novel coronavirus covid 19 and using it as reasoning to push an anti-5G agenda is frankly abhorrent. People are dying.
There, that was easy.
SB
I never said it did, i was playing Devils Advocate.
David Ickes claim that 5G is responsible for the Corona virus i am led to believe is based on the video I provided a link for. I agree it is quite a leap to go from effects such as insomnia, headaches, fatigue, heart palpitations from wireless technology to making people more susceptible to viruses. I am just pointing out what his hypothesis if we can generously call it that is based on.
Oh you are in SB's club of the condescending, how cool!
Please do explain how my post is condescending.
You could start with your credentials for claiming to be able to explain what a scientific theory is because you haven't answered how my scenario is any different from what you accept as one. Not one that any qualified scientist would accept. Neither have you acknowledged the danger of your acceptance of such crassness.
A scientific theory has to start with the evidence not to be proposed in the face of all evidence.
I am sorry if you find that condescending but if you could start to reason rationally instead of claiming an argument and then suggesting it is someone else's position to defend it would be a good starting point.
Not at all, none of you will ever stop me from having my opinion on things (nor would I ever try to stop you having yours) no matter how hard you ALL try to be condescending and belittling, everyone of you wishes to bombard me with science fact when my whole point wasn't even about that, its about for every theory that's right there are loads that are wrong and people can come up whatever theories they like, at no point did I say I agree with David Icke's theory about 5G and Coronavirus but because I chose to defend someone's right to develop their own theory no matter how absurd it makes me wrong, carry on people I have all day!
This is part of the problem. You believe all opinions are valid.
There are such things as facts and opinions that fly in the face of facts should not simply be allowed to be perpetrated unchallenged. If they are dangerous, why should you want them to be publicised? Strange.
My opinion could be that you are a red badger living in the Antarctic.
Is the opinion all people of a certain racial type or religious belief are inherently inferior perfectly acceptable for you? What about that there is a perfect ideal race? There are reasons why some "opinions" are not acceptable to be preached.
Is David Icke inciting people to do dangerous things? Is he actually telling people to go out and destroy 5G masts?
I believe David Icke's theory that 5G is responsible for the Corona virus is based on this video by the former president of Microsoft Canada Frank Clegg where he questions the safety of wireless tecnology, in particular 5G.
Even if 5G is not connected to the recent pandemic i still think we should all be a little bit concerned as to the safety of 5G.
Can you tell us what is concerning you with regards to the safety of 5G?
Because if it's the EM radiation it's probably useful to know that visible light is closer to the damaging end (ionising) of the EM spectrum than 5G. In fact you are probably getting a large "dose" of non-ionising EM radiation from your computer monitor reading this post. I take no responsibility for that except to say it won't do you any damage because non-ionising radiation doesn't do damage in the same way as ionising radiation such as x-rays.
The only way non-ionising radiation can cause problems is through heat and the power of 5G transmitters is orders of magnitude below what is required (from the top of my head it's something like a factor of 1000 to weak).
If you are worried about 5G you probably shouldn't go out in the daytime or use the lights in your house or post on here in front of your monitor. Better to be safe than sorry.
SB
"There that was easy"
"If you are worried about 5G you probably shouldn't go out in the daytime or use the lights in your house or post on here in front of your monitor. Better to be safe than sorry."
Is to possible for you to reply to me or anyone else for the matter without being patronising and condescending? I doubt you would speak to someone this way in person and if you did i am pretty sure they wouldn't tolerate it. If it is not possible for you to engage in debate like a mature adult then I think the best thing going forward is for us to ignore each other.
5G technology has not been properly tested to determine its impact on human health or the environment. The federal government agency in charge of wireless infrastructure, has never studied the health impacts of any wireless technology.
In 2011 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" after studies suggested links to a specific type of brain tumor.
The new millimetre wave technology in 5G produces 10 times the radiation compared to 4G. The fact that 5G has not been tested for me is a cause for concern. There have been concerns for years about the implementation of 5G. See below.
A group of over 250 scientists from around the world in 2017 wrote and published a declaration called the “5G Appeal” asking for a moratorium on the building of 5G infrastructure. This was a followup to a previous letter sent to the United Nations with a similar request.
They said in part:
“We recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry…RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
You can read the entire published appeal here.
A few other notable comments made by experts (thanks to EHtrust.org for putting these together)
“There is a substantial body of evidence that this technology is harmful to humans and the environment. The 5G millimeter wave is known to heat the eyes, skin, and testes… Of particular concern are the most vulnerable among us – the unborn, children, the infirm, the elderly and the disabled. It is also expected that populations of bees and birds will drastically decline.” —Letter from oncologist Lennart Hardell MD & Colleagues
“A growing body of scientific literature documents evidence of nonthermal cellular damage from non-ionizing wireless radiation used in telecommunications. This RF EMR has been shown to cause an array of adverse effects on DNA integrity, cellular membranes, gene expression, protein synthesis, neuronal function, the blood-brain barrier, melatonin production, sperm damage, and immune dysfunction”. —Dr. Cindy Russell 2018 paper entitled “5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications.”
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
