Predjudicial prejudices

[Katman]

As I always say, blind faith is of no value as it breaks down under pressure.

But you blindly believe that a building can collapse at free fall speed due to the failure of a single column simply because a government agency said their computer model confirms it.

Oh, by the way, you're not allowed to look at how they got their computer model to show that result - that's a secret.

[oneofsix]

But you blindly believe that a building can collapse at free fall speed due to the failure of a single column simply because a government agency said their computer model confirms it.

Oh, by the way, you're not allowed to look at how they got their computer model to show that result.

You just gave a good example of a prejudice. The building briefly reached free fall in mid fall and it was after multiple columns had failed. There was, of course, a column that failed first. But as that doesn't fit your prejudice against the official story you pick and chose how you read it.

[iYRe]

But you blindly believe that a building can collapse at free fall speed due to the failure of a single column simply because a government agency said their computer model confirms it.

Oh, by the way, you're not allowed to look at how they got their computer model to show that result.

actually, the guy who built the building said that this failure along with how he DESIGNED the building caused it.

But that's irrelevant because no one will ever know.

Occams razor should apply. Is it more likely the US government tried to kill their own citizens, in their own capital city.. or that the architect of the building itself is right?

Anyway.. carry on.

[Edbear]

But you blindly believe that a building can collapse at free fall speed due to the failure of a single column simply because a government agency said their computer model confirms it.

Oh, by the way, you're not allowed to look at how they got their computer model to show that result.

Not blind at all, as I said l look at all the available evidence, not just the conspiracy theorists evidence and base my conclusions upon everything in context. I don't just cherry pick what I want to believe and ignore proof to the contrary.

[Katman]

There was, of course, a column that failed first.

Don't forget, it was the farthest column from the debris and fire damage.

[Drew]

Yes, I know. And yet I grew up with a different definition.

I suspect the American(?) PC machine has deemed it equates to discrimination, (racial), which interestingly enough used to mean something different also.

You can't go too far wrong with a literal translation from the original, and give the PC brigade the finger they so desperately need.

Alright, lets get the fuckin definition right to start with. "Pre judge" you say. Pre meaning before right? Before encountering is my take, but you are welcome to come up with anything else you like because it cannot be at odds to the basic meaning of Ed's dictionary definition.

How do you feel about conspiracy theorists Ed?

The question is loaded. Not all conspiracies are bulshit, so the people themselves are a varied demographic.

But you blindly believe that a building can collapse at free fall speed due to the failure of a single column simply because a government agency said their computer model confirms it.

Oh, by the way, you're not allowed to look at how they got their computer model to show that result - that's a secret.

If I'd written the program that could model in real time, a building coapsing, fuck if I'd tell some cunt how it works. Be years of my time wasted, for them to potentially profit!

[Drew]

Don't forget, it was the furtherest column from the debris and fire damage.

You come work in high rise buildings with me for 15 years, and see the shit I have seen. Then you can start to question the architect who actually designed WT7, and his opinion of how it came down. If he could have dodged that bullet, I'm pretty fuckin certain he would have. His reputation and all, being on the line as it was.

[Katman]

If I'd written the program that could model in real time, a building coapsing, fuck if I'd tell some cunt how it works.

I dare say not Drew.

Especially if it wasn't a very good model.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...n-by-fire.html

[Smifffy]

As I said, I was posting the dictionary definitions. You would have to decide for yourself whether he was being reasonable or not. However, for those who have experienced what he suffered, one could hardly criticise him for how he felt.

War, indeed conflict per se, brings out both the best of humanity and the worst. No doubt many Japanese would not have supported the atrocities committed by those who were under the influence of a totalitarian regime that told lies to provoke hatred and who were under threat of death should they resist their commanders.

Mankind has within himself the capacity for incredible love and incredible evil, and we must decide which of these will rule our own lives. Examining our own prejudices goes a long way to improving our own lives and that of those we associate with.

So are you saying that the purpose of identifying a prejudiced view is in order to criticise the person with the prejudice?

[Edbear]

So are you saying that the purpose of identifying a prejudiced view is in order to criticise the person with the prejudice?

I think you meant this for the other thread?

[Drew]

So are you saying that the purpose of identifying a prejudiced view is in order to criticise the person with the prejudice?

I used to be prejudiced against Ducatis. Now that I have personal experience, I know I was right!

So to criticise someone for their prejudice, could become quite entertaining.

[Ocean1]

Alright, lets get the fuckin definition right to start with. "Pre judge" you say. Pre meaning before right? Before encountering is my take, but you are welcome to come up with anything else you like because it cannot be at odds to the basic meaning of Ed's dictionary definition.

But pre-what? Pre-meeting-an-individual seems the obvious point, yes?

So if an individual walks towards me wearing his pants down around his knees and a baseball cap backwards on his head then I might make some assumptions about his likely behaviour, based on other similarly clad dude's I've met. So the "judgment" is in fact based on previous personal experience. That's prejudice, and like I said it's not only natural it's sorta hard wired into us, difficult to impossible to change.

The definition that's become more common equates to "treating this here black dude badly because I don't like black dudes even though the black dudes on TV are proportionately bad and or good based on racial population demographics".

Which simply means the PC brigade has got hold of it and fucked with teh meaning to suit themselves, rather than concentration on their own lack of comprehension, which would have had them focusing on words like "Racist" or "Discrimiatory".

[Edbear]

So are you saying that the purpose of identifying a prejudiced view is in order to criticise the person with the prejudice?

Now I'm having trouble keeping up with both threads...

What I am saying is that it is not always healthy to hold unreasoned prejudicial views and we are doing ourselves a disservice if we don't question why we hold those views. Maybe with the view to changing our opinions which may help resolve conflicts.

[Smifffy]

I think you meant this for the other thread?

I'm certain if you scroll up, you'll find where I quoted you directly came from this thread.

[blackdog]

Now I'm having trouble keeping up with both threads...

Scotch with the Tramadol is it?