|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 28, 2011 9:38:19 GMT -4
April 1st, 1957, Panorama on the BBC. A broadcast from a time when there were only two TV channels in Britain (and one of those had only been broadcasting for just over a year); ten years before colour television was used at all in Britain; when only just under half the homes in Britain had television sets; and when spaghetti (along with pasta in general) was a rather more rare sight in the shops than it is today.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 28, 2011 15:04:01 GMT -4
I know its old,, its older than me. It gets the odd re airing and some I know have fallen for it. Red faced when the penny dropped but there we go. TV has a power.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 29, 2011 3:41:14 GMT -4
April 1st, 1957, Panorama on the BBC. A broadcast from a time when there were only two TV channels in Britain (and one of those had only been broadcasting for just over a year); ten years before colour television was used at all in Britain; when only just under half the homes in Britain had television sets; and when spaghetti (along with pasta in general) was a rather more rare sight in the shops than it is today. I think the pasta point is quite valid and it raises a question. If it is outside a persons direct range of experience then someone could be influenced by hooky info. For example I have no interest in ball room dancing, if someone were to comment that a dancer made a particular move that was poorly executed I would not know if that move was good or if indeed it was real. I could also from that moment in time slate that dancer as not very good. I personally would however try to find out if I was interested. (personally I think dancing should be banned..... ) But in similar circumstances for other topics, I think, information provided outside the sphere of interest for a person can be taken as the way it is. It is then rooted in the brain as an almost dead cert, as it was on the telly. This is not picking on certain people, I just think this is the way we react to information and its source.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on May 1, 2011 6:14:03 GMT -4
But frankly, 'photobuster', I suggest you find another obsession... Or if you are seriously interested, pick your absolute favorite 'proof' of a hoax, and then have a go at defending it. If you are not interested in that... then I've got to say that your posts here look a little like Jarrah spam... And when did I say I think the moon landings were fake? I've said this in many of my earlier posts, I believe they were real but I don't agree with some criticisms made against HB's like Kaysing and Rene. I remember seeing one video about Kaysing and a person said in the summary "this person is dumb, autistic" and something along those lines. I find that insulting as I myself have AS and I take it vey personally if anyone says we are not intelligent. But for the hoax part I DO NOT BELIEVE in the conspiracy theories but I think the HB have a right to express their views.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on May 1, 2011 12:13:50 GMT -4
But for the hoax part I DO NOT BELIEVE in the conspiracy theories but I think the HB have a right to express their views. And when you find someone saying they shouldn't have that right (in the general protected-from-government form) you go ahead and report that person to the mods or something. However, if you mean to imply that ridicule of absurd ideas is somehow censorship, you need to reassess your position. The right to free speech/expression is not the right to freedom from the personal and professional consequences of same. Especially when your freely-spoken expression is largely composed of lies.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 1, 2011 12:28:19 GMT -4
I remember seeing one video about Kaysing and a person said in the summary "this person is dumb, autistic" and something along those lines. I find that insulting as I myself have AS and I take it vey personally if anyone says we are not intelligent. Leaving aside the fact that it's probably true that the average autistic person is of lower-than-average intelligence, I myself am bipolar and also get twitchy when people mischaracterize my illness. A lot of people apply the blanket label of "schizophrenic," too, and that's wrong for most conspiracy theorists. Even when they get it right that schizophrenia is not the same as the medically dubious Dissociative Identity Disorder, as I believe we're calling it these days. I very much agree either way, though, that characterizing conspiracy theorists of any belief structure as stupid, mentally ill, or any other denigrating term is a bad idea. Even if the person referring to whatever-HB-it-was as autistic really had a very clear view of the medical definitions which put you in the autistic spectrum, without a diagnosis, they shouldn't do it. And even with a diagnosis, it's arguing the wrong thing. Whether any of these people are mentally ill or developmentally disabled or anything else of that variety is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that they are wrong. And we have an obligation to correct their errors whenever possible. Their right to their own opinion only goes so far. They have a right not to be personally insulted over it, but they don't have a right to spread error to other people.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 1, 2011 16:57:20 GMT -4
But for the hoax part I DO NOT BELIEVE in the conspiracy theories but I think the HB have a right to express their views. I'll repeat my earlier question to you. Since no one here is able to censor HBs or has proposed censoring them, what is the point of the comment? Is it just a statement of principle or were you trying to get a conversation going? If the later is case, then the kind of reply you are looking for is unclear to me and apparently some others here.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on May 2, 2011 4:40:17 GMT -4
But for the hoax part I DO NOT BELIEVE in the conspiracy theories but I think the HB have a right to express their views. I agree ... but they should also expect to have those views shot to pieces if they demonstrate (as they tend to do) a complete lack of credibility or evidence to back them up. This is not a political debate in which all opinions can be considered equally valid, the Apollo landings either happened or they didn't. The evidence we have says, quite unequivocally, that they did, so an HB simply standing up and saying "no they didn't", which is what most of their arguments ultimately boil down to, cuts no ice whatsoever. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone on this board is interested is restricting the freedom of HBs to express their views, but freedom of speech does not also provide freedom from having unfounded and ridiculous views treated with the contempt they deserve. [/rant]
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 2, 2011 12:00:37 GMT -4
If someone expresses their views in public saying it did not happen I expect them to be challenged. They can defend it or fail.
|
|
|
Post by twik on May 2, 2011 15:59:14 GMT -4
If you're going to proclaim your right to express yourself on a forum that is set up for debate, you must also accept the right of other people to challenge, or even disbelieve, you.
|
|