The more interesting question is what the opposite has to offer.Originally Posted by Deimos
About the whole 9/11 issue, which is as far as I have come till now:
Neither is the free press careful enough or competent enough to hinder put to forth all the evidence used in this (hardly so it actively provides it's share), nor are any of their general customers.
That means everyone in this thread, each of us excluding several small pieces of fact, that we might feel able to pass our judgement on.
So for example all technical arguments I hear about the destruction of the towers are false.
The still make it into the news, if the creator of this took the time and used real news-articles or just manufactured it, I don't know (I just found the sources section, I am not sure if I realy want to waste my time on this);
What stays evident:
- The free press is lacking and not able to live up to the responsibility to create trustworthy information about our world any more; How they presented all this is ridiculous (all this is actually pretty much equivalent to the war on terror and all that surrounds it) and making it easy for such people as the creators of the film.
- We ourself need to review what we trust in, because we are hardly competent to distinguish facts, on which we rely the press on to do it for us.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle between the film and what is issued as official news, but this is already horrendous, because the media covers the whole range from news to myth-making.
To all the people who just openly and generally disagree:
What do you know? Where do you know it from?
All this is is a summary of evidential material, things that are reported similarly by traditional established media and a few years ago.
Alone this is more than just troubling, the media obviousely is in a crisis, but to take the step and act like the information we have gotten used to be selective and think we are up to make that selection is approaching this issue from the ultimatley wrong side because we are not.
About the very buhdist coloured speech in the begining and the general critisism of religion: From what people know my position here, they might assume I am of the same opinion, lets put forth that I am seeing this the first time. I think it's rather bland and extremely focused on winning a battle that it can't win.
When you counter an aesthetic or romantic outlook on the world such as people of strong faith have, do not include romantic or aesthetic arguments into your too much flaming speech for objectivism, or you will loose all you strive for, even if you win, which is unlikely; You don't beat religions on their own battlefield.
I stoped watching the movie when i heard him pronounce RothsChild.
""Where did you learn your trade, you stupid f*ck*ng c**t?"
##
Edit: I very much recomend the book "The looming tower" by Lawrence Wright which won itself the pulitzer prize; It at least gives you enough insight to counter much of the said film about AlQuaeda or Bin Laden where it's just appearing incompetent. The New York Times called it marvellous and I can only agree to that.
