The Controversial Statement Thread

And raw fish, and soy sauce, and wasabi, and pickled ginger.

Oh yeah, and except for when it's Sashimi so there's no rice.

KK > AA

  On 12/29/2013 at 5:35 PM, M360 said:

Any microbrew is gonna be better than A&W, though my favorite

 

 

for a caffeinated rootbeer

Yeah I repped Barq's as a kid.

shitting > pissing

  On 12/30/2013 at 12:05 AM, 2WV said:

shitting + pissing

controversial fix

itt: not a single controversial statement

  On 12/30/2013 at 12:20 AM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

itt: not a single controversial statement

THAT IS A CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT!

...i don't care because you don't

conan obrien had it coming

leno deserved that spot

asian women are submissive

snes > sega genesis

Pibb & Pepper aint got shit on Dr Bob!

Tomorrow's Harvest doesn't have a lot of staying power as an album.

autechre is tedious, boring music for people with autism.

conan o'brien is a self important, whiny twat.

arrested development isn't funny.

doctor who is wish fulfillment for annoying anglophile girls. no american man actually enjoys it.

philip k dick is a terrible writer.

kurt vonnegut is a terrible writer.

people who trust George W Bush's/Cheney's version of what happened on 9/11 are semi mentally retarded

  On 12/30/2013 at 2:56 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

people who trust George W Bush's/Cheney's version of what happened on 9/11 are semi mentally retarded

people who buy the official story about Sandy Hook are dunderheads

  On 12/30/2013 at 3:36 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 2:56 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

people who trust George W Bush's/Cheney's version of what happened on 9/11 are semi mentally retarded

 

 

people who buy the official story about Sandy Hook are dunderheads

 

You can't compare the confidence levels (in the official story being false) for these two events, for sandy hook, it's like 50%, which is nothing. For 9/11, there's 99.999% certainty due to multiple strong independent confirmations (which also leave MIHOP as the only tenable explanation).

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:11 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 3:36 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 2:56 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

people who trust George W Bush's/Cheney's version of what happened on 9/11 are semi mentally retarded

 

 

people who buy the official story about Sandy Hook are dunderheads

 

You can't compare the confidence levels (in the official story being false) for these two events, for sandy hook, it's like 50%, which is nothing. For 9/11, there's 99.999% certainty due to multiple independent confirmations (which also leave MIHOP as the only tenable explanation).

 

Firstly, Sandy Hook is pretty clearly a legit shooting. There are still some holdouts but hopefully somebody will send those people a Snopes link soon. The only reason anyone thought it was a conspiracy to begin with is because some people think that everything is a conspiracy (e.g. Alex Jones).

Secondly, I simply don't accept your standard of evidence. I've set my standard of evidence so as to disclude spooky coincidences and unanswered questions. Even if you don't buy the official story, you still have the burden of evidencing your belief sufficiently.

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:28 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:11 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 3:36 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 2:56 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

people who trust George W Bush's/Cheney's version of what happened on 9/11 are semi mentally retarded

 

 

people who buy the official story about Sandy Hook are dunderheads

 

You can't compare the confidence levels (in the official story being false) for these two events, for sandy hook, it's like 50%, which is nothing. For 9/11, there's 99.999% certainty due to multiple independent confirmations (which also leave MIHOP as the only tenable explanation).

 

 

Firstly, Sandy Hook is pretty clearly a legit shooting. There are still some holdouts but hopefully somebody will send those people a Snopes link soon. The only reason anyone thought it was a conspiracy to begin with is because some people think that everything is a conspiracy (e.g. Alex Jones).

 

Secondly, I simply don't accept your standard of evidence. I've set my standard of evidence so as to disclude spooky coincidences and unanswered questions. Even if you don't buy the official story, you still have the burden of evidencing your belief sufficiently.

 

Sorry, but you dont.

I find this especially strange considering that you were pushing the atheism definition of lack of belief when people demanded you disprove God.

I have an astounding lack of belief in the official 9/11 story:

If only due to the fact that Bush and Cheney gave testimony to the Commission that was never released, never documented, and never taken under oath is enough for any rational human being to be skeptical about the "official story".

Now if you want to accuse me of believing that aliens or our government was complicit in blowing the towers up, feel free.

Also, fuck what ya heard, Mug owns all cheap common root beers.

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:28 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:11 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 3:36 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 2:56 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

people who trust George W Bush's/Cheney's version of what happened on 9/11 are semi mentally retarded

 

 

people who buy the official story about Sandy Hook are dunderheads

 

You can't compare the confidence levels (in the official story being false) for these two events, for sandy hook, it's like 50%, which is nothing. For 9/11, there's 99.999% certainty due to multiple independent confirmations (which also leave MIHOP as the only tenable explanation).

 

 

Secondly, I simply don't accept your standard of evidence. I've set my standard of evidence so as to disclude spooky coincidences and unanswered questions. Even if you don't buy the official story, you still have the burden of evidencing your belief sufficiently.

 

If you don't accept my standard of evidence, then you have an incorrect and irrational standard of evidence. It's not a matter of debate; you can't just say "my rationality is different from yours". There's only one right answer, and I have it, and everyone who disagrees is a fuckwit.

Spooky coincidences and unanswered questions are exactly what you look for, and try to explain. The drill-based explanation of 9/11 answers all questions and explains all spooky coincidences, that's why it is correct.

Rejecting rational ways of thinking is a very practical way of defining "mentally retarded" so I conclude that you're a retard (and also a morally corrupt scum).

alex jones is a conspiracy

I find it pretty obvious that sandy hook was legitimate, and 9/11 was not.

Well yeah, both happened. But responsible parties and motivations etc for 9/11 are very questionable. Sandy hook was just some fucking fucked up quack. 9/11 had billions of dollars of monetary gain by interested persons in weapons and defense companies/contracts etc of which bush sr. was a key stakeholders in one of these companies.. I don't know. Seems relatively obvious but then again, I don't know much about these things =/

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:34 AM, SR4 said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:28 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:11 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 3:36 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 2:56 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

people who trust George W Bush's/Cheney's version of what happened on 9/11 are semi mentally retarded

 

 

people who buy the official story about Sandy Hook are dunderheads

 

You can't compare the confidence levels (in the official story being false) for these two events, for sandy hook, it's like 50%, which is nothing. For 9/11, there's 99.999% certainty due to multiple independent confirmations (which also leave MIHOP as the only tenable explanation).

 

 

Firstly, Sandy Hook is pretty clearly a legit shooting. There are still some holdouts but hopefully somebody will send those people a Snopes link soon. The only reason anyone thought it was a conspiracy to begin with is because some people think that everything is a conspiracy (e.g. Alex Jones).

 

Secondly, I simply don't accept your standard of evidence. I've set my standard of evidence so as to disclude spooky coincidences and unanswered questions. Even if you don't buy the official story, you still have the burden of evidencing your belief sufficiently.

 

 

Sorry, but you dont.

 

I find this especially strange considering that you were pushing the atheism definition of lack of belief when people demanded you disprove God.

 

I have an astounding lack of belief in the official 9/11 story:

 

If only due to the fact that Bush and Cheney gave testimony to the Commission that was never released, never documented, and never taken under oath is enough for any rational human being to be skeptical about the "official story".

 

Now if you want to accuse me of believing that aliens or our government was complicit in blowing the towers up, feel free.

 

Also, fuck what ya heard, Mug owns all cheap common root beers.

 

Yes, I reject the claim that God exists. That doesn't mean that I have evidence that he doesn't exist, I simply don't see any evidence that he does exist. Despite my (completely rational) rejection of the claim, I could someday be proven wrong. If you don't believe the official story, that's fine and easily defensible, however that doesn't make the official story wrong simply because you are (justifiably) skeptical of it.

It's like if 2000 years ago someone had said "I know the earth is round because I feel it deep in my heart" then you would be rational to disbelieve that person, and then you would again be rational to accept that the earth was round when there was actual evidence for the claim.

StephenG we agree but your reasoning is wrong. Just because certain parties profited enormously from 9/11 doesn't mean it was a conspiracy. That's zero evidence and you should ignore it while trying to determine what happened. There's tons of independent and completely convincing real evidence that you should look at instead.

You guys have terrible taste in root beer.

  On 12/30/2013 at 4:39 AM, Joseph said:

 

Rejecting rational ways of thinking is a very practical way of defining "mentally retarded" so I conclude that you're a retard (and also a morally corrupt scum).

 

Umm what? How am I morally corrupt scum?

Also you should google 'science' and see how it actually works. Spooky coincidences and unanswered questions simply aren't evidence.