SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.You guys are all missing the IMO most likely reason why the nyjfl wanted so many interviews with the Doritos dinks......
It's called process crime (or the scooter Libby syndrome): Well's was clearly looking for a fall guy, somebody he could hang SOMETHING on. Well, if he could get the bozos to commit to some fact-assertion in interview 1 or 2, and then get them to contradict themselves later in interview 4 or 5 when their memories get fuzzy..... BINGO, you get lying to the investigator (even if they didn't actually do anything wrong up front). Thats essentialy what they endend up going After brady on (cell phone etc).
We live in a county where certain issues remain politically divisive, hard-fought topics despite there being near scientific consensus on one side of the issue. So no matter how flawless this someone's reputation is, and no matter how fact-drive and undeniable their expose is, I feel pretty comfortable asserting that people who don't like the conclusion will generally dispute it anyway. Because their ignorance is just as valid as your well-researched, thoroughly documented truth somehow. As long as they can find the occasional bad actor that's explicitly been paid to reach the conclusion they want to hear (Exponent), that will trump scientific consensus.
Quality post. Although this link may seem unrelated, all three of your major points are key components in this discussion.Consensus is not science.
In fact, I would go on to say that science without spirit (not to be confused with religion) is incomplete and incorrect. But I digress.
In regards to what you stated and truth..."the desire for actual truth exists in very few minds, and the capacity to discern it in fewer still. When men say that they are seeking the truth, they mean that they are looking for evidence to support some prejudice or prepossession. Their beliefs are moulded to their wishes. They see all, and more than all, that seems to tell for that which they desire; they are blind as bats to whatever tells against them" (HP Blavatsky).
In fact, I would go on to say that science without spirit (not to be confused with religion) is incomplete and incorrect
What do you mean by this?
I'd be more than glad to go into heaps of details, perhaps, in another thread.
Go right ahead and reply with a link.
Instead, what I am going to do is answer your original question as concisely as possible. FYI: I run a few groups on topic on other channels/sites which contain heaps of details, however, I choose not to be supplying my personal infos et al. (And that's what would happen if I supply links to those groups.)
According to Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." However, one would have to be blind to see that religion without SPIRIT is impotent or lame. Ergo, this offering is incomplete and incorrect. What he should have said is: Science without SPIRIT is lame, SPIRIT without science is blind. And that is what I meant by that by the statement that you inquired about.
Of course, that is my opinion. If one disagrees- that's fine. One can be perfectly happy without having to have others agree, yeah?
That's what I thought. For the record, I disagree.
We live in a county where certain issues remain politically divisive, hard-fought topics despite there being near scientific consensus on one side of the issue. So no matter how flawless this someone's reputation is, and no matter how fact-drive and undeniable their expose is, I feel pretty comfortable asserting that people who don't like the conclusion will generally dispute it anyway. Because their ignorance is just as valid as your well-researched, thoroughly documented truth somehow. As long as they can find the occasional bad actor that's explicitly been paid to reach the conclusion they want to hear (Exponent), that will trump scientific consensus.
Instead, what I am going to do is answer your original question as concisely as possible. FYI: I run a few groups on topic on other channels/sites which contain heaps of details, however, I choose not to be supplying my personal infos et al. (And that's what would happen if I supply links to those groups.)
According to Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." However, one would have to be blind to see that religion without SPIRIT is impotent or lame. Ergo, this offering is incomplete and incorrect. What he should have said is: Science without SPIRIT is lame, SPIRIT without science is blind. And that is what I meant by that by the statement that you inquired about.
Of course, that is my opinion. If one disagrees- that's fine. One can be perfectly happy without having to have others agree, yeah?