Some constructive criticism

[N.T.M.]

Split off from original thread. Tangent is tangential.

From Wikipedia:

"In 2006, Russo wrote, produced, directed, and starred in a documentary feature film entitled America: From Freedom To Fascism. The film questioned the legality of the income tax and attacked the "growing authoritarianism" in American life. The film was made after Russo had over $2 million of tax liens filed against him by the Internal Revenue Service, the state of California, and the state of New York for unpaid taxes. In an interview with the New York Times, however, Russo refused to discuss the liens, saying they were not relevant to his film."

"In early 2007, an interview with the radio talk show host Alex Jones saw Russo discuss his friendship and conversations with a Nicholas Rockefeller, whom he said was a member of the famous Rockefeller banking dynasty. In it he describes how Nicholas Rockefeller had revealed to him 11 months previous to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, that "an event" would happen that would lead to an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and would lead to the unwinnable "War on Terror". Russo also said that Rockefeller was part of a ruling elite whose end goal, as stated by Rockefeller himself, is "to create a one world government, where everybody has an RFID chip implanted in them"."

Great. So we've got a guy claiming 9/11 was an inside job who owes money on taxes claiming that taxes are illegal. Seems legit enough to me.

I wouldn't doubt that the government would allow some horrible things to happen to justify creating laws in effort to form a world government.

Instead of attacking Russo's credibility, how about disproving some of the things he pointed out?

[Coolgamer]

I wouldn't doubt that the government would allow some horrible things to happen to justify creating laws in effort to form a world government.

Instead of attacking Russo's credibility, how about disproving some of the things he pointed out?

I'm not allowed to. I tried to create a thread before debunking almost every single 9/11 myth that the "truthers" bring up. It's not allowed to be discussed here.

[N.T.M.]

I'm not allowed to. I tried to create a thread before debunking almost every single 9/11 myth that the "truthers" bring up. It's not allowed to be discussed here.

After browsing these boards for a bit now I've concluded that things are WAY too restricted. There have been some decent threads that've been locked for very poor reasons. I mean if somebody has a topic with reasonable validity backing it, it autta be allowed to be discussed.

[Coolgamer]

After browsing these boards for a bit now I've concluded that things are WAY too restricted. There have been some decent threads that've been locked for very poor reasons. I mean if somebody has a topic with reasonable validity backing it, it autta be allowed to be discussed.


Oh, I agree, but the general fear is that this will become a "conspiracy" board, something devonin hates with a passion. He feels that such topics as the JFK, the Robert Kennedy, and MLK assassinations, 9/11, the moon landings, blah blah blah are not to be discussed even if researched facts are provided due to the potential fallout they could cause within the community.

[N.T.M.]

Oh, I agree, but the general fear is that this will become a "conspiracy" board, something devonin hates with a passion. He feels that such topics as the JFK, the Robert Kennedy, and MLK assassinations, 9/11, the moon landings, blah blah blah are not to be discussed even if researched facts are provided due to the potential fallout they could cause within the community.

I don't doubt that he has validity with his reasoning, but I still believe that the consequences of not allowing such debates are worse than the risk of transforming the boards.

[devonin]

Oh, I agree, but the general fear is that this will become a "conspiracy" board, something devonin hates with a passion. He feels that such topics as the JFK, the Robert Kennedy, and MLK assassinations, 9/11, the moon landings, blah blah blah are not to be discussed even if researched facts are provided due to the potential fallout they could cause within the community.I'm wondering how it is you think you can be justified to simply tell someone my motivations. Especially when you've gotten it pretty much entirely incorrect.

As regards the point you made here, I simply direct you to rules 4 and 5 of this forum, namely:

4/ You must back up your claims with evidence.

5/ Unfalsifiable claims are not allowed.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are necessarily unfalsifiable. If they could be proven or disproven, basically, they wouldn't be conspiracies. The hallmark of a conspiracy being that the truth is covered up. Theorize all you want about what might have actually been the case with regards to some event, but if you don't have actual facts to back up your claims, they belong in chit-chat and not critical thinking. That's all there is to it.

9/11 is specifically extra not-allowed simply because all of the evidence for the conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked, and all the evidence of the debunking has been thoroughly debunked, and the evidence for the debunking of the debunking etc etc ad nauseum. Too many people with highly questionable qualifications have made too many highly questionable claims on both sides for it to be a reasonable topic of discussion, all threads about it end up pointing to the same two sources both of which are highly suspect, so there's just a flat-out moratorium on 9/11 threads.

If that's a problem, make a 9/11 thread in chit-chat.

After browsing these boards for a bit now I've concluded that things are WAY too restricted. There have been some decent threads that've been locked for very poor reasons. I mean if somebody has a topic with reasonable validity backing it, it autta be allowed to be discussed. Could you please PM me as to which decent threads you feel were locked for very poor reasons, so I can possibly shed some light onto the reason why those threads were locked? I think you'll find that the forum here isn't actually that restricted at all. There are just standards for topics. Many threads that get made here are more appropriately placed in chit-chat, and usually get moved. Some threads for various reasons some of which you may simply be unaware of, get locked.

I don't doubt that he has validity with his reasoning, but I still believe that the consequences of not allowing such debates are worse than the risk of transforming the boards.I don't allow threads that violate the rules of the forum...if you feel your thread has been locked without actually violating a rule, let me know. If you feel a rule should be changed or removed or added, let me know. Don't just start tossing around scare-phrases like I'm some sort of big brother autocrat.

I'm going to split these posts off into another thread, since they are detracting from the actual discussion of the income tax.

[Cavernio]

Rule 5 is not a good rule IMO. Way too many things are unfalsifiable.

[devonin]

Unfalsifiable claims make for no debate or discussion or ability to think critically about them...seems pretty reasonable to suggest that unfalsifiable things make for poor threads in a forum about debate, discussion and thinking critically.

Just don't confuse speculation or supposition with unfalsifiability. We can discuss all kinds of things that -we- don't know for certain one way or another (For example threads speculating about the future of foreign policy, or advancements in science or whathaveyou) without making a claim that is actually unfalsifiable.

[N.T.M.]

Could you please PM me as to which decent threads you feel were locked for very poor reasons, so I can possibly shed some light onto the reason why those threads were locked? I think you'll find that the forum here isn't actually that restricted at all. There are just standards for topics. Many threads that get made here are more appropriately placed in chit-chat, and usually get moved. Some threads for various reasons some of which you may simply be unaware of, get locked.


It's been quite a while since I've participated in the CT section. Unfortunately this comment isn't really relevant to this thread. I just wanted to comment on your moderating. After being involved in a few other forums I've learned to appreciate a mod actually making an effort to enforce the rules. Many mods on other forums seem to be bias with how they enforce rules and penalties. Just wanted to say good job =). I mean if you close a thread you're willing to actually explain why appose to some who refuse to produce any decent reason.