09-10-2016, 06:21 AM
(09-10-2016, 05:33 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: If you want to view me as being on higher moral ground, that's your choice - but I didn't say anything like that. I was just speaking to one of my own perceived forms of service. Nor did I say anything whatsoever about censorship or being a "guardian of the conspiracies" or nearly everything else you wrote! Come on, man. Are you doing this on purpose? I'm having a hard time understanding why you seem incapable of replying to me without first rewriting my posts to say things I didn't. (Then accusing me of being aggressive based on it.)
I never said anything to the effect that someone shouldn't share their views. Only that it would be wise to consider the overall impact their words might have.
As for the necessity of contributing a bias, that's kind of an odd statement to make. Every post in every thread ever is ultimately contributing a bias. Everyone has the right as free entities to do so, for whatever reasons they choose. One could just as easily question why you believe contributing your own biases is necessary. But I won't, because -again- that's simply what discussion IS: A comparison of biases, none more necessary or not than any other.
But either way, if you are honestly unable to respond to me without turning everything I write into a strawman, I'm just not going to bother. You're giving me absolutely no reason to try having an actual discussion with you. It's becoming outright exhausting trying to disentangle my real words from what you imagine them to be.
You began with this:
Quote:Even if every word in these documents is true -which I highly doubt- disseminating it would amount to little more than acting as an Illuminati PR agent.
You are essentially demonizing anyone who cares to post the documents, myself included. I did not post this info in a random fashion, it was most certainly within the framework of the topic at hand and even came with a disclaimer for the squeamish. You glanced at it and decided it was your job to ensure that others were discouraged from reading it, branding it a 'conspiracy theory' and suggesting that I was either knowingly or unwittedly furthering the agenda of a certain "Illuminati". This is essentially what I object to. A simple "I don't like/believe it." would have sufficed. Thus I implied that you were being silly, not that you were silly.
See, with all that psyops training you learn to use weasel words correctly. :-/