9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

> Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news Well yeah, they largely do: ▶ this video But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes? > No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals. Sure, and if they really cared , they could do that even despite the TTIP, or they could reject or re-negotiate the TTIP. There's no way around that, regardless of whether you trust that governments are operating with our best interests at heart.

Got a "that comment was too long" so I'm splitting it in twain. Part the second: "Please wake up." You seriously need to lose the habit of using that phrase. It's annoying, and it makes me struggle not to devalue the rest of what you say. "There is no way to keep a government in check - it wields absolute power over a geographical area, until the masses stop believing that someone else has the right to rule them, that is." It is not the case that a government wields absolute power. I don't believe it's the case that there is no way to keep a government in check. Also, I don't think "someone else [having] the right to rule [us]" is a correct characterization of functioning democratic governance (even in a representative democracy). 'No, the only version of the idea of rights that works and is tenable, is one that is based on sound reasoning. If 100 people "collectively decide" that you don't have the right to own a spleen, I'm sure you'd agree that's not a particularly good way of defining rights. Sure, a spleen is an extreme example, but it could be anything really.' You have shown neither that the above is sound reasoning, nor that other frameworks are not. And if 100 people decide I don't have a right to a spleen in a context without government, how does that go any better? "Any collective decision where you're harmed without you harming anyone is obviously wrong." The more narrowly you define "harm" the more true that becomes, but even at the limit you have trolly-problem-

> It was a straightforward attempt at a simple existence proof - you had said "things which meet these criteria are extortion", I provided something that met those criteria that was not extortion. I pointed out that taxation meets the criteria for extortion: you're giving up your property under threat of violence. It's clearly a match. You asked if me demanding my laptop back would constitute extortion, which we both know it doesn't. There are two reasons why not: 1) the laptop is my property (regardless of "how"), 2) there is no threat. This is why my original reaction was: "Oh come on". But now you're saying the laptop was an example of something that meets the criteria of extortion without being extortion.. and that's just not true. >>> I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do >> Well that sure is fucked up. > Wow, that is some powerful REASON right there. What you said is comparable to me declaring that I'll just shoot you in the kneecaps and take your money if I ever come across you, just because I want the money, so fuck you and fuck your well-being. So that's perfectly alright if it results in a "good outcome", as defined by.. who?