Apparently PJW from Infowars has been lied to by the gov't because Hitler is still alive at 120yrs old:

Reporter for Alex Jones’ Infowars says Hitler is alive and the U.S. government is covering it up: https://t.co/zph0JjEAg3 pic.twitter.com/Thl4pmcRz4

— Media Matters (@mmfa) November 2, 2017

This looks to be the offending video that got him banned from Twitter for 7 days:

On Periscope, which is owned by Twitter, Alex Jones tells supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against antifa, the mainstream media, and “Chicom operatives” https://t.co/OBHSFc3ofC pic.twitter.com/ntQbh9IKxz

— Media Matters (@mmfa) August 14, 2018

Still down:

Five videos NASA does not want you to see:

Could this be it?  Could these be the reasons why Space Force was created?

Space Force!

Omarosa tells NPR she heard the Trump N-Word tape:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/636955054/omarosa-tells-npr-she-heard-trump-n-word-tape-contradicting-her-own-tell-all-boo

"Hearing it changed everything for me," former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman told NPR on Friday.

Manigault Newman was referring to what she calls the "N-word tape" — a long-rumored but never surfaced tape of Donald Trump on the set of The Apprentice allegedly using the racial slur. In her interview with NPR's Rachel Martin, Manigault Newman claims to have heard the tape and heard Trump using that slur on the tape.

But that's not what it says in her tell-all book, Unhinged, due out on Tuesday.

When asked by Martin about the discrepancy during the interview,

[...]

"I heard the tape," she said when pressed.

[...]

________

So does this Trump N-Word tape exist?

If it does, my bet is we'll all get to hear it during the 2020 Presidential Election run...

Trump, "Look at my African American over here!"

Kasich says Ohio election was a "vote on the president"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kasich-ohio-voters-were-sending-a-message-to-republicans-trump/

[...]

4 hours ago, caroljane said:

This is funny! but not  traditionally a joke, as you say. It is more like an opening scene for a sitcom. I can see Halle Berry as the female lead .

Incidentally, Halle Berry is into intermittent fasting:  https://www.health.com/celebrities/halle-berry-keto-diet-intermittent-fasting

(at least one OL member would be happy to see that)

Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth Have Unfollowed James Gunn on Twitter

http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/07/31/chris-evans-chris-hemsworth-unfollow-james-gunn-twitter/

July 31, 2018

While the Guardians of the Galaxy cast is showing massive support for James Gunn right now, it seems as though some of their Marvel Cinematic Universe teammates may not be quite on board with the "Rehire Gunn" campaign. [...] it seems that Captain America star Chris Evans and Thor star Chris Hemsworth have quietly unfollowed Gunn's Twitter account

[...]

Gunn was never Evans and/or Hemsworth's director in the MCU (or at all), so their relationship with him is something on a "friend of a friend" level, professionally speaking. Moreover, this controversy surrounding Gunn and his "offensive tweets" from ten years ago, joking about everything form rape to pedophilia, has largely split both fan and celebrity circles down the middle.

[...]

____

Yea those tweets were disgusting and Disney made the right move.  The "rehire" Gunn "campaign" is a joke.  Gunn is toxic and there are likely 10 directors that can step in his place and do a fine job---Gunn is absolutely replaceable.  Actors Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth did the right thing by unfollowing him, The Guardians of the Galaxy cast need to step away from Gunn.

Quote

Aristotle's wheel paradox is a paradox appearing in the Greek work Mechanica traditionally attributed to Aristotle.^[1] There are two wheels, one within the other, whose rims take the shape of two circles with different diameters. The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution. The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. But the two lines have the same length, so the wheels must have the same circumference, contradicting the assumption that they have different sizes: a paradox.

Criteria 1)  "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution."

Criteria 2)  "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines"

Criteria 3)  "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. "

Criteria 4)  "the two lines have the same length"

Criteria 5)  "the wheels must have the same circumference"

____

I'm going to comment on these, but I'll just say first that the entire paradox is set up fallaciously.  First the wheels do not have the same circumference as Criteria 5 says.  Criteria 4, however, is correct that the lines do have the same length.  But what the two lines represent are the distance between the midpoints of the circles from point A to point B, (Criteria 1 does say the wheels roll).  So these two lines do not represent circumferences like Criteria 3 says, "the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences."

Criteria 1, "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution."----What point are they referring to that do not slip?  It's ambiguous as written.  So:

• If Criteria 1 is saying the point is the midpoint of the circles that the wheels do not slip on, then that part is true.  They rotate on their axis without any slippage from point A to point B.
• If Criteria 1 is saying the point they do not slip on is on the lines drawn at the bottom of the circles and that the wheels are fixed along their tracks, then this is wrong in saying that they can move from point A to point B without slippage.  One wheel can have a fixed track at a time and not have slippage, but they cannot both have fixed tracks at the same time and not have the inner wheel slip, to explain:
  • If the outer wheel were fixed along its track the inner wheel has slippage along its track.
  • If the inner wheel were fixed along its track, the outer wheel would not make a full revolution.  Why?  Because the inner wheel's circumference is less than the outer wheel's circumference.  (Which again, Criteria 5 is fallacious saying that, "the wheels must have the same circumference.")

So to summarize:

Criteria 1)  "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution." -- FALLACIOUS

Criteria 2)  "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines"  -- TRUTH

Criteria 3)  "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. "  -- FALLACIOUS

Criteria 4)  "the two lines have the same length" -- TRUTH

Criteria 5)  "the wheels must have the same circumference" -- FALLACIOUS

The only thing paradoxical to me is how this thread keeps going!

Space Force conspiracy hatching:

So is Alex Jones putting on an act?  Not according to his wife, here is her first-hand account as she recalls his personality and behavior problems:

First time hearing the tape, never read a transcript and didn't know what the context was.  First listen I heard, "I'll pay with cash."

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You obviously don't know anything at all about this stuff, preferring to deduce reality from a principle rather than trying to look with your own eyes. Yeah, you've told me about your law enforcement experience, but from what I can tell, it was extremely limited. You haven't seen anything of the world.

Well I don't know.  I had to scan confiscated computers as a job requirement for pedophilia a few times and finding those images was hell.  Later around the victim's advocate department, which was a counseling and deposition department for victimized children, I unfortunately saw children and parents/guardians crying and distraught after their appointments.  And I heard about cases as well, people working cases.  Different, but still contextual.  I have had friends personally affected by it, so I do know some of the impact it can have.

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

This is why I am not going to engage with you too much on this issue.

I have worked in the entertainment industry and seen this stuff with my own eyes. I have personally known pedophiles who have invited me to participate with them. I always brushed them off, but a couple of times, I've even seen them calling kids. I've seen them change their personalities right in front of me when they talk to the kids. I've listened to them explain to me that having sex with kids is a form of rejuvenation so I should try it. I know of at least three famous American popular music groups that came to Brazil who had pedophiles among them. And I mean the lead singers. Two were targeted to the youth audience and one was an oldies but goodies group. How do I know they were pedophiles? I used drugs with them and they asked if I could hook them up with people who were into that stuff.

Okay, but don't take this as pressing, but this expertise still doesn't give reason to why Dan Schneider or the list of pedophiles in the children's entertainment industry that you posted earlier are actually pedophiles.  What it does mean is you have met some disgusting people that should be investigated.  I'm not saying that these people aren't pedophiles, but how does one see a rumor that someone is a pedophile and start pointing fingers like they are?  I don't get that.

57 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Keep calling me a conspiracy theorist and thinking I'm crazy if you like. I don't care. I'm still going to do what I am doing. I'm right and I'm doing right. So lame attempts at peer pressure isn't going to stop me.

Well you have said before on OL that you are a conspiracy theorist!!!  So theeerrreeee!!!!      Do I think you're crazy?  No, but I do think some of the stuff posted is crazy.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I have already inspected, but I would have to dig to get you links. Here's just an obvious one. In 2012 Gunn made a big splash in the press with an apology for similar material (if not worse) on a blog he had (see here). Does anyone believe Disney didn't have lawyers looking into that stuff? There's a little thing called corporate liability.

The thing is, companies who cater to the children's market have always hired pedophiles when they thought they could get away with it. (Here's a small list of pedophiles in the child entertainment industry I took right off the top of a Google search just to give a few examples.)

Why do they do that? If you think about it, the answer is obvious. It takes a lot of cunning to get a child to agree to have sex and not melt down. Pedophiles have to entertain children much more than other adults do out of sheer necessity, and they have to play on the emotions of children at the child's level, so they become wicked good at it. Getting them to do kiddie shows is almost a guarantee of success. Pedophiles represent a major kiddie entertainment talent pool.

It's sick, but that's the way it runs.

If you want an example, take a look at Dan Schneider of Nickelodeon. (See the RedState article, too: Famed Nickelodeon Producer OUT After Years Of Pedophilia Rumors.) Now take a look at a paragraph I chose almost at random from the Wikipedia article his name is linked to in this paragraph:

Without the pedophile and his "expertise" in goosing children's emotions to entertain and dazzle them, the show, All That, tanked. After they brought him back on board, it became successful again.

We're talking big bucks, so there is a lot of protection these guys get in the children's entertainment industry.

Think of it this way. If you want to learn how to be nice to people and get them to respond to you quickly, wouldn't it make sense to study with a conman? That's a standard part of his arsenal. How are you going to con anyone if they don't take a liking to you?

Ditto for children and pedophiles. If you're an adult running a show-business venture and want to be successful at entertaining a wide audience of children, who better to hire than a pedophile? That's all he thinks about 24/7.

Once again, sick, but that's the way it works.

Also, these companies get very, very, very good at damage control...

Michael

Well, this post looks like conspiratorial thinking to me, it starts out with a conspiratorial statement,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The thing is, companies who cater to the children's market have always hired pedophiles when they thought they could get away with it.

Then there is a statement that is factual, outside of any conspiracy,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It takes a lot of cunning to get a child to agree to have sex and not melt down. Pedophiles have to entertain children much more than other adults do out of sheer necessity, and they have to play on the emotions of children at the child's level, so they become wicked good at it.

So then the factual statement is used to substantiate the conspiratorial premise stated earlier,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Getting them to do kiddie shows is almost a guarantee of success.

Now here is where I run into a problem.  It's doesn't necessarily support the conspiratorial premise stated earlier, that "companies who cater to the children's market have always hired pedophiles when they thought they could get away with it."  Still, continuing the thinking a statement is made to concretize it,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you want an example, take a look at Dan Schneider of Nickelodeon. (See the RedState article, too: Famed Nickelodeon Producer OUT After Years Of Pedophilia Rumors.) Now take a look at a paragraph I chose almost at random from the Wikipedia article his name is linked to in this paragraph:

Quote

In 1993, Hecht, now head of production for the network, hired Schneider to work on a new sketch-comedy show for children called All That. After writing the pilot episode, Schneider worked as producer, executive producer, and writer on the show. Schneider quit All That after the first four seasons to run The Amanda Show. The show's ratings soon declined, and it was cancelled in the 2000–2001 season. Nickelodeon then asked Schneider to come back and revamp All That in 2001. Schneider agreed, and All That returned to Nickelodeon in 2002. It ran for another four seasons until 2005, bringing All That to the end of its 10-season run.

Without the pedophile and his "expertise" in goosing children's emotions to entertain and dazzle them, the show, All That, tanked. After they brought him back on board, it became successful again.

And now I'm utterly confused.  It's a rumor that Dan Schneider was outed because of pedophilia, but the factual statement is again being used to substantiate the rumor---yet this rumor was supposed to be a concretization.  It doesn't add up.

To end the post this statement is made,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, these companies get very, very, very good at damage control...

Note first that nothing was proven or evidence shown to support the original claim, yet this coverup claim serves to tidy things up nicely, to complete the conspiratorial thinking.  And note secondly that this concluding statement doesn't contribute to proving anything or supporting the claims made earlier, either.  This claim should be handled by itself and needs to be proven as well, in other words, where is the evidence for such a cover-up?  But of course!  It is damage control so the coverup would leave no evidence...  hence, a conclusion to conspiratorial thinking.

I would just say to reverse this conspiratorial thinking, one should ask, "Does each element in this context have to do with each other?"  In other words, are these things separate or together?  Nathaniel Branden talks about epistemological separation in his book The Art of Living Consciously.  Not everything has to be "together", and "oneness" isn't necessarily epistemologically valid.  In other words, there is integration and differentiation.  Not everything in the world is connected.  It's our job to find them, figure out what the differentiations are and why they are, and make the necessary epistemological differentiations according to what's out there in the real world and what is logical.  Otherwise, one can be doing a thought exercise and it have nothing to do with reality.  I think that is what happened with this post I just went through.  Thinking about possibilities related to the original premise---but perhaps one should ask themselves if taking that action (the thought-action) of doing so is valid in itself.  What does that thought-action do?  Does it explore possibilities on some kind of conspiratorial premise, or does it uphold epistemic objectivity and use reality and a proven process of logic?  What is the end result between these two, epistemologically, psychologically, and health?  In other words, does that conspiratorial thinking result in something of value, or would some other kind of thought-action be more appropriate?

These are my thoughts about this, and since this is the conspiracy theory thread...

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

One of the most devastating effects of pedophilia on the culture at large is when people who practice it gain power and influence among the elites.

MSK,

Can you prove this claim?

23 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

...And do I really have to type this?

That's chin hair being depicted, it's not a symbol.

Jon, it's up to you to do the rest.  Reality is on your side.

14 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Jon,

There is a symbol on this boat's sail like one of the pedophile symbols that you posted earlier.  Is the symbol itself some pedophile symbol?  I don't know.  But what I do know is that just because this symbol exists on this sail doesn't mean that it is a pedophile symbol, even if the symbol was in fact a pedophile symbol.  It is a coincidence that this symbol exists in the cartoon.  So to believe it is is a fallacy of coincidence.  Going deeper, this is a false cause fallacy, meaning that there is no causation.  So the symbol is there in the cartoon for a different purpose.

Here is what the symbol on the boat actually is in reality, it is a Koru symbol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koru

The koru (Māori for "loop"^[1]) is a spiral shape based on the appearance of a new unfurling silver fern frond. It is an integral symbol in Māori art, carving and tattooing, where it symbolises new life, growth, strength and peace.^[2] Its shape "conveys the idea of perpetual movement," while the inner coil "suggests returning to the point of origin".

55 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Disney was right to fire him.

I agree with this.  Freedom of speech is a right, but Gunn entered into a contract with Disney and typically these contracts have clauses to fire if they aren't representing the brand.  Those tweets are horrendous and disgusting and Disney is well within their rights to fire him.  Whether Disney knew/didn't know, or evaded them, or possibly asked him to delete them is another matter for inspection.  But there's no way in hell I would have hired him if I saw those tweets.

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And so he is.

[...video...]

Cernovich is archiving everything and sending copies to law enforcement.

Thousands and thousands of pedo tweets by James Gunn.

No one can look at this and say it was just a few jokes in poor taste. Not that many.

This isn't even Cosby level where the US public crucified Bill Cosby from the sheer number of women who accused him. These thousands and thousands pedo tweets didn't come from others. They came from Gunn himself.

Michael

So are you saying that James Gunn is a pedophile?  The content in those tweets/blog don't even prove mens rea.

9 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Jon,

There is a symbol on this boat's sail like one of the pedophile symbols that you posted earlier.  Is the symbol itself some pedophile symbol?  I don't know.  But what I do know is that just because this symbol exists on this sail doesn't mean that it is a pedophile symbol, even if the symbol was in fact a pedophile symbol.  It is a coincidence that this symbol exists in the cartoon.  So to believe it is is a fallacy of coincidence.  Going deeper, this is a false cause fallacy, meaning that there is no causation.  So the symbol is there in the cartoon for a different purpose.

Jon,

Though I don't necessarily agree with Rand that all evil in the world is the irrational, what I can say is that the context you are posting about the images and finding evil in them is irrational.

Yes there is pedophilia in the world.  Yes the pedophilia that exists is evil.  But you are 'finding' something that doesn't exist and calling it evil.

sigh

6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Jon,

I see you've posted several images that seem to relate to each other.  Since this is a philosophy board about a philosophy that says Reason is man's tool of survival, and that Rationality is man's fundamental nature, I feel inclined to create this post regarding the images.

What these images are in a logical context is they are attempting to be linked on properties of the entities they depict, and the rule is that you can't link entities based on properties alone or you'll end up with a distribution error in a syllogism.  An example of this error is a brown haired man and a brown haired horse, the two properties in this case are the same, brown hair, but can anything be deducted about the man and the horse?  No.  Another example is the category of action, an orange haired man is building a building.  His orange hair has nothing to do with him building.

If the images are being presented as an induction, then they are being grouped by a property of each entity.  And for each entity in the group this property needs to be linked back to the entity itself, if not, there is no induction and no valid principle can be formed.  Take the action flowing--flowing water, flowing hair, flowing lava.  Can any principle be formed about these entities?  No.  The most you can say is they all have the property of flowing, they are separate entities that have nothing to do with each other.

I hope you don't take my post the wrong way.  I don't see any deduction or induction with the images you posted.