WIKILEAKS "POISON PILL" IS UFO DISCLOSURE?
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
i have a feeling that in order to "evolve" into the space/universal age to where a civilization can travel to other solar systems and galaxies, they would have had to mature spiritually as a civilization as a whole or else they would have killed and exploited their own planet and society before any real technological advancements can be utilized for practical use.
a collective reality that is founded on greed, separation and materialism is far too limiting to be able to venture across space and time.
of course tho, this perception is still within the confounds our own collective reality and is therefor merely the opposite side of the "one' coin that we all adhere to.
so im not closed off to the idea of "non-benevolent space beings coming for our oil" either.
Once i can think outside the box then i will have nothing else that i could say.
a collective reality that is founded on greed, separation and materialism is far too limiting to be able to venture across space and time.
of course tho, this perception is still within the confounds our own collective reality and is therefor merely the opposite side of the "one' coin that we all adhere to.
so im not closed off to the idea of "non-benevolent space beings coming for our oil" either.
Once i can think outside the box then i will have nothing else that i could say.
But we are not arguing whether Reagan truly was a great man or not, only that his statement was poorly crafted and highly debatable since the belief that Reagan wasn't a great man is far from widely held.
Look I can say "calling Rosie O'Donnell a sex symbol is like calling Lebron James a good basketball player" - but it would be pretty stupid and lack poignancy because the overwhelming majority does not think Rosie O'Donell is sex symbol.
I am glad you took the time to explain why people may think Reagan "was not a great man" (and I am gonna refrain from turning this into a debate about if the acceleration of capitalism is even a bad thing lol :classic: ) but that is what was lacking from Armen's explanation.
Too many people regurgitate what they hear from bipartisan political pundits they see on TV - so if you are gonna claim Reagan was a bad president, you better be able to back it up IMO.
Well I have first hand experience with Harvard turning down an applicant to their MBA program whose Dad was the CEO of a Fortune 100 Company and offered to donate 10+ Million - so I am not convinced that they are so easily purchased.
I would definitely argue that their is a higher correlation between intelligence level and being President of the US - than their is between intelligence level and graduating HS (again average American).
Fuck Oregon lol.
First of all, command of the English language isn't necessarily in indicator of intelligence levels, nor is it the only measure.
Their have been a number of intelligent people who were terrible orators.
Secondly, why are we disregarding his test scores? He scored significantly above average on his SATs.
And what is being smart other than a relative intelligence comparison to your peers? (he was significantly above average)
I don't see how his above average scores on aptitude test is an opinion.
Its 100% opinion, and nothing more. It all depends no how a person perceives the things he has done, said, and stand for. Do your ethical standards line up with his? Do you agree with what he did? It doesn't matter what 20 million other people said. Thats like saying Justin Beiber is really, really talented becuase he sold 10 million albums. Did YOU buy the album? Do YOU think he has talent?
Since when does the majority mean anything? You are merely agreeing with an OPINION of the majority, nothing more.
However, comparing Rosie and LeBron in terms of sexy and good, are bad examples. One being that LeBron has stats to at least have an argument, where as "sexy" is 100% subjective. Maybe someone finds Rosie sexy, but there is no way to refute that claim, as it is opinion. LeBron, however, at least has empirical evidence in terms of comparative data to other great basketball players.
And that's fine, but he doesn't owe you, me, or "god" SHIT. He can say whatever he wants, and he doesn't even have to tell you WHY he said it. That is the amazing thing about living in a country with the freedom of speech.
See above.
Maybe, maybe not. That is one instance. Not a real good sample size.
And while that is your perspective, that doesn't make it true. I am sure there are plenty of intelligent people that graduated HS, but never perused further education for any number of reasons.
Even then, being "book smart" does not mean you are also "street smart".
Indeed.
Agree 100%.
Its one thing to not speak well, its another to make up words.
Is "above average" good?
A "my dick is bigger than yours" competition, like pretty much everything else we do?
They arent, but saying that is smart just because he did well on an aptitude test is a bit vague and incomplete, dont you think? Just becuase he can do long division, doesn't mean he would know what to do if he drove his car into the ocean and needed to get out of his car safely. Again, book smarts are only part of the equation when talking about intelligence.
Since when does the majority mean anything? You are merely agreeing with an OPINION of the majority, nothing more.
However, comparing Rosie and LeBron in terms of sexy and good, are bad examples. One being that LeBron has stats to at least have an argument, where as "sexy" is 100% subjective. Maybe someone finds Rosie sexy, but there is no way to refute that claim, as it is opinion. LeBron, however, at least has empirical evidence in terms of comparative data to other great basketball players.
And that's fine, but he doesn't owe you, me, or "god" SHIT. He can say whatever he wants, and he doesn't even have to tell you WHY he said it. That is the amazing thing about living in a country with the freedom of speech.
See above.
Maybe, maybe not. That is one instance. Not a real good sample size.
And while that is your perspective, that doesn't make it true. I am sure there are plenty of intelligent people that graduated HS, but never perused further education for any number of reasons.
Even then, being "book smart" does not mean you are also "street smart".
Indeed.
Agree 100%.
Its one thing to not speak well, its another to make up words.
Is "above average" good?
A "my dick is bigger than yours" competition, like pretty much everything else we do?
They arent, but saying that is smart just because he did well on an aptitude test is a bit vague and incomplete, dont you think? Just becuase he can do long division, doesn't mean he would know what to do if he drove his car into the ocean and needed to get out of his car safely. Again, book smarts are only part of the equation when talking about intelligence.
No but if there was a poll of greatest musicians of our time and Justin Bieber scored in the top 10 and I made a statement insinuating Justin Bieber was not a good musician, I would need to explain my position if I wanted my statement to have any logic behind since it to since it is contrary to common opinion.
The majority means something on subjective issues because it is a way to define the argument.
If I say 2+2=4 (within our realm of spacetime etc) that can be proven true or false with real world facts.
However, if I say Justin Bieber is a good musician - one way to come a test the validity of the statement is by referencing the majority opinion. It doesn't make the statement any more intrinsically correct, but the logic behind the argument is consensus.
Consequently, if you choose the side contrary to majority opinion (whuch Armen did), you need to explain why (which are Armen did not do) or the comment becomes meritless and without logic.
I disagree they are bad and examples and I chose them purposely because RR has empirical evidence to back up a claim that he was a great president as much as Lebron's stats back up his claim to basketball greatness; because who decides that Lebron's stats aren't as subjective. Why are points necessarily a defining character of being a good at basketball?
You can say they are, I can argue they are not. You can't prove that Lebron's stat prove he is intrinsically good at basketball, but you can use the logic that most people think based on his stats that he is a good basketball player - there is still room for subjective debate whereas there is not with the argument 2+2=4.
Fair enough, he can say whatever he wants, and I will call bullshit whenever his comments look like swiss cheese.
See above
Do you have any personal examples of them taking a poor applicant based solely on a monetary donation?
We are talking about the average HS graduate, not specific graduates, because what is smart other than being more intelligent than an average person?
Simply;
Do you think there is a high or low probability that the President of the US is smarter than the average HS graduate in the US?
I think there was a thread about this a while back but I disagree that their is a difference between being book smart or street smart (unless by book smart you only mean ability to retain information but not necessarily comprehend it)
It was significantly above average and I don't know what you mean by "good"
I think you misunderstood. What I meant was, how do we define someone as "smart" other than by a comparison to others?
No more vague and incomplete than saying he is dumb because he doesn't speak well and fumbles over words.
The majority means something on subjective issues because it is a way to define the argument.
If I say 2+2=4 (within our realm of spacetime etc) that can be proven true or false with real world facts.
However, if I say Justin Bieber is a good musician - one way to come a test the validity of the statement is by referencing the majority opinion. It doesn't make the statement any more intrinsically correct, but the logic behind the argument is consensus.
Consequently, if you choose the side contrary to majority opinion (whuch Armen did), you need to explain why (which are Armen did not do) or the comment becomes meritless and without logic.
I disagree they are bad and examples and I chose them purposely because RR has empirical evidence to back up a claim that he was a great president as much as Lebron's stats back up his claim to basketball greatness; because who decides that Lebron's stats aren't as subjective. Why are points necessarily a defining character of being a good at basketball?
You can say they are, I can argue they are not. You can't prove that Lebron's stat prove he is intrinsically good at basketball, but you can use the logic that most people think based on his stats that he is a good basketball player - there is still room for subjective debate whereas there is not with the argument 2+2=4.
Fair enough, he can say whatever he wants, and I will call bullshit whenever his comments look like swiss cheese.
See above
Do you have any personal examples of them taking a poor applicant based solely on a monetary donation?
We are talking about the average HS graduate, not specific graduates, because what is smart other than being more intelligent than an average person?
Simply;
Do you think there is a high or low probability that the President of the US is smarter than the average HS graduate in the US?
I think there was a thread about this a while back but I disagree that their is a difference between being book smart or street smart (unless by book smart you only mean ability to retain information but not necessarily comprehend it)
It was significantly above average and I don't know what you mean by "good"
A "my dick is bigger than yours" competition, like pretty much everything else we do?
No more vague and incomplete than saying he is dumb because he doesn't speak well and fumbles over words.
Would you? Art is subjective, and if a person cant understand that, than they should go fuck themselves. Poll's of opinion are worth about as much as a piece of shit in hand. But again, that is MY perspective on that, something you may not share. I give a fuck what the majority or minority thinks and I do not create my opinion around those variables.
That doesnt make it a viable or correct way to do it...it just is the easiest way to do it.
True.
While that may be true, thats still doesn't make it viable. Intropersonal perspective on subjectivism is coming into play here.
To everyone else, sure. That still doesn't mean he has to explain his answer.
Since when are points scored the end all-be all of being a good player? There are several ways to calculate that, such as Points per minute, assists, FG%, FT%, TO/A ratio, etc. These are all statistical facts.
While RR has stats that backup WHAT he did, they can still be perceived as either good or bad, depending on who you ask.
So I guess i am confused as to why you are arguing FOR my point. Maybe I misread something along way.
And that is your right as an American and IMO, a human being.
No, i dont.
I guess you could look at it that way. However, what if this "average person" was an expert at fixing fishing boat motors...does that still make him average?
Again, intelligence is a very broad spectrum, and that is why I have a problem with your stance.
Thats fine, but I would suspect just about everyone would disagree with you. I have known several people that could do math in their head, knows everything about George Washington...but would never know NOT to wonder into a bad neighborhood at night. You know, common sense.
Exactly.
GOod point. Without smart, there is no stupid and vice versa.
Fair enough. However, the point you are arguing in terms of HOW his intelligence was measured, would say that for a man of his intelligence, he shouldn't be making up words, wouldn't you say?
That doesnt make it a viable or correct way to do it...it just is the easiest way to do it.
True.
While that may be true, thats still doesn't make it viable. Intropersonal perspective on subjectivism is coming into play here.
To everyone else, sure. That still doesn't mean he has to explain his answer.
Since when are points scored the end all-be all of being a good player? There are several ways to calculate that, such as Points per minute, assists, FG%, FT%, TO/A ratio, etc. These are all statistical facts.
While RR has stats that backup WHAT he did, they can still be perceived as either good or bad, depending on who you ask.
So I guess i am confused as to why you are arguing FOR my point. Maybe I misread something along way.
And that is your right as an American and IMO, a human being.
No, i dont.
I guess you could look at it that way. However, what if this "average person" was an expert at fixing fishing boat motors...does that still make him average?
Again, intelligence is a very broad spectrum, and that is why I have a problem with your stance.
Thats fine, but I would suspect just about everyone would disagree with you. I have known several people that could do math in their head, knows everything about George Washington...but would never know NOT to wonder into a bad neighborhood at night. You know, common sense.
Exactly.
GOod point. Without smart, there is no stupid and vice versa.
Fair enough. However, the point you are arguing in terms of HOW his intelligence was measured, would say that for a man of his intelligence, he shouldn't be making up words, wouldn't you say?
@I Pukokeki Ioulo Momu - good post
The discussion in this thread has quite a few similarities with the exploration of the concept of Philosophical Quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
"What distinguishes good and bad writing?"
A book which, if I remember correctly, you enjoyed and wrote about on here.
So tell me, what is so funny about the concepts being discussed in this thread?
The discussion in this thread has quite a few similarities with the exploration of the concept of Philosophical Quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
"What distinguishes good and bad writing?"
A book which, if I remember correctly, you enjoyed and wrote about on here.
So tell me, what is so funny about the concepts being discussed in this thread?
^its just funny that you can admit that "good" in this context is a notion relative to subjectivity, yet still say "because more people share this subjective view, we can call this 'good' or come to conclusions according to the subjective whole "
if you cannot see the issue with that then i dont know what else to say
if you cannot see the issue with that then i dont know what else to say
the fact that you believe such a thing REQUIRES a consensus while admitting that the consensus is limited to the relativity of/to the perceiver is the problem.
You arent seeing that even your belief that such a consensus is "required" is also a value only relative to your own perceiving of whatever "structure" you imagined up in your little head.
You arent seeing that even your belief that such a consensus is "required" is also a value only relative to your own perceiving of whatever "structure" you imagined up in your little head.
http://news.exopoliticsinstitute.org/index.php/archives/890
Read that. Now here is the link that goes directly to the GCF.
http://www.gcf.org.sa/en/Program/Program/Welcoming--Networking--0800---900112112/
Read that. Now here is the link that goes directly to the GCF.
http://www.gcf.org.sa/en/Program/Program/Welcoming--Networking--0800---900112112/
![[ n a v ]](/xf/data/avatars/s/13/13106.jpg?1534684272){kind=avatar}
maybe extraterrestrials are not only evolved in a physical and intellectual way, but also in a spiritual way. maybe they understand that all is one. that we are all crumbs of the same cookie. maybe to become whole, those crumbs need to realize this oneness through knowledge of self, utilization of free will, and gaining understanding through life experiences, eventually understanding that there is no self and that unification is the key to evolution, to the next step. maybe human beings are the last ones to figure this out, we are so stuck in the perspective that we are all there is. we kill ourselves, we pray to false gods, we repeat these cycles of self destruction etc without any real progression. if all is one and their evolution is dependent on us joining the whole, like a puzzle piece thats necessary to complete the puzzle, maybe they depend on us to figure it out, but they cant just come out and say it because that would violate the law of free will. so they give hints, slip things through, inspire curiosity and truthseeking in their own subtle ways. maybe they gave us tech to help us communicate, to help us focus on things that really matter instead of manual labor and such. like helping tesla discover a/c in that "flash of light" to help illuminate the world in a physical way to speed up the illumination in a spiritual way. maybe they gave us nucleur energy and we decided to use it as a weapon, so they feel its their responsibility to hang around and make sure we dont kill ourselves with it. maybe love has something to do with it...
Props:
milkky and milkky
is it possible that they dont even need to travel millions upon millions of light years. all they did was learn how to open worm holes and travel through dimensions and galaxies that way? I mean we are doing sum gnarly stuff with those atoms smashing together creating lil big bangs. we are assuming thats what they are doing. maybe they are also creating blackholes and worm holes. We are making advancements in technology it seems by the week. compared to a few hundred years ago we got electricity. we have mad rediculous leaps. maybe the time is near we start to get with the program......
Is this what the GOM does is speculate about whether or not extraterrestrials are malevolent or benevolent?
I think some of you need to remove the Hollywood from your opinions and try to think a little more logically.
If they're coming for minerals(loose terminology), why are they in need of them, and how did they find them on our planet?
If they're here to kill us, what did we do to cause their dominance of us to be paramount?
Are they technologically advanced more than us?
Do they look like us?
None of those questions can be answered.
I'll reserve any questioning until the real news breaks.
And what's the deal with "poison pill"? I've yet to even see it in the thread.
I think some of you need to remove the Hollywood from your opinions and try to think a little more logically.
If they're coming for minerals(loose terminology), why are they in need of them, and how did they find them on our planet?
If they're here to kill us, what did we do to cause their dominance of us to be paramount?
Are they technologically advanced more than us?
Do they look like us?
None of those questions can be answered.
I'll reserve any questioning until the real news breaks.
And what's the deal with "poison pill"? I've yet to even see it in the thread.
1. Look at the title of the thread real slowly. Pay attention to the question mark.
2. Google "wikileak posion pill" to understand why the question mark is in the title.
3. Refer to the link in the OP and use critical thinking skills to sum it all up.
4. Ask your nearest wal-mart clerk if they sell now & laters.
5. Problem solved.
2. Google "wikileak posion pill" to understand why the question mark is in the title.
3. Refer to the link in the OP and use critical thinking skills to sum it all up.
4. Ask your nearest wal-mart clerk if they sell now & laters.
5. Problem solved.