united-people.tk
https://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/

Greg Palast and discernment ...
https://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1090
Page 1 of 1

Author:  UncleZook [ Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Greg Palast and discernment ...

http://www.bollyn.com/greg-palast-is-re ... id-kimche/

One's relational tethers are easy enough to determine.

But is that enough to convict?

Not in itself. So we pursue the preponderance if any.

Greg Palast's preponderance (of guilt) doesn't have just the unique relational element, e.g. guilt by association, as Chico contends. Greg Palast also denies the reality of 9.11.2001. He is an employee of mainstream media. He used to be buddies with Chavez, an evidenced minion of the bankster empire (in the design of Castro, another minion). Keep looking and you'll find even less uniqueness ... and more commonality with the stooges of the empire.

Yet Chico still entertains the uncertainty bubble around Palast.

Case closed. Bailiff, you may clear the courtroom.

Pax

Author:  Chicodoodoo [ Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Greg Palast and discernment ...

UncleZook wrote:
Case closed. Bailiff, you may clear the courtroom.

:lol: :lol:

We have to keep you around for theatrical entertainment value, Zook.

Palast's guilt by association and his flawed perspective of 9/11 may indicate something hidden in his motives, or it may indicate ignorance, circumstance, or even nothing at all. If I was on the jury, I would acquit due to reasonable doubt and lack of convincing evidence. Your lawyer tricks-of-the-trade just wouldn't cut it for me, no matter how flashy, self-assured, and egocentric your grandstanding was. It's definitely entertaining, but it is not truth.

But then, you wouldn't let me serve on the jury, would you, for truth is not your goal. Winning your case is your goal.

Author:  Chicodoodoo [ Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Greg Palast and discernment ...

From your posted link, Zook:

Quote:
She gave me Greg Palast's mobile number so I called him to ask about the details. He refused to answer any questions about his family relationship to David Kimche and pretended to be offended that I was asking such questions.

That's a red flag that would certainly raise suspicions. I'm all for being suspicious of Palast, Assange, Snowden, Applebaum, Zook, Chico, and everyone else on this world stage. Likewise, Bollyn's story also has to be questioned, as he obviously has reason to discredit Palast in the pursuit of his own agenda. All of this confirms the "messy mixture" aspect of trying to uncover the truth. It's a mistake for you to be so certain that you hold the truth, Zook, and that everyone else needs to get on board your train.

Question everything, dismiss nothing. Can you do that?

Author:  UncleZook [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Greg Palast and discernment ...

It's a colossal concern for all of us when warranted conclusions ... warranted intermediate conclusions, to be sure, because our level of access to the underlying schematic is what it is ... are derided in favor of unwarranted uncertainty.

Palast talks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ...

Uncertainty about Palast is unwarranted ... and counter to truthseeking.

Pax

Author:  Chicodoodoo [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Greg Palast and discernment ...

UncleZook wrote:
Uncertainty about Palast is unwarranted ... and counter to truthseeking.

No, it's not. Unless you are certain Palast works wittingly for the deceivers, based on undeniable and verifiable proof, then uncertainty is the only justifiable and warranted position. "Intermediate conclusions" are by definition uncertain. Uncertainty is not counter to truth-seeking. Certainty is, because you think your job is done and vigilance (questioning everything and dismissing nothing) is no longer required. The illusion of certainty is exactly what the deceiving and manipulating sociopaths rely on to fool the masses.

Author:  UncleZook [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Greg Palast and discernment ...

UncleZook wrote:
Uncertainty about Palast is unwarranted ... and counter to truthseeking.

No, it's not. Unless you are certain Palast works wittingly for the deceivers, based on undeniable and verifiable proof, then uncertainty is the only justifiable and warranted position. "Intermediate conclusions" are by definition uncertain. Uncertainty is not counter to truth-seeking. Certainty is, because you think your job is done and vigilance (questioning everything and dismissing nothing) is no longer required. The illusion of certainty is exactly what the deceiving and manipulating sociopaths rely on to fool the masses.


The subtle shift in narrative (from the specific case of Palast to the general case) ... is just Chico being Chico.

Logical fallacies to the left of me ... jokers to the right ... here I am stuck in the middle with the clueless.
:jest:

I repeat, uncertainty about Palast ... is counter to truthseeking.

Pax

Author:  Chicodoodoo [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Greg Palast and discernment ...

UncleZook wrote:
I repeat, uncertainty about Palast ... is counter to truthseeking.

The "subtle shift in narrative" is necessary because you cannot see the forest for the trees. Even your perspective on individual trees is flawed because your image of the forest (the bigger picture) is oversimplified, extremely narrow (due to the extremism of your binary thinking), and nonadjustable because of your stubborn certainty in your discernment. There is a positive feedback loop occurring with your reasoning (positive meaning the deleterious effects are increasing), and it is leading you further and further astray.

I'm trying to get through to you to help you see what you are missing. I realize it is not working, as there is very little room in your certainty for change, but I keep hoping there is a chance. Yes, I could be wrong, and I am sure I am wrong to some degree, but from where I stand, I see that you are making many of the same mistakes that I have already had to correct in myself.

Things are not A or B. They are a "messy mixture" with every attribute on a constantly shifting sliding scale. Reality is not what your discernment dictates. Reality should be your focus, not your discernment. Your discernment is flawed. Reality is what it is.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/