Fanger wrote:The reason this hasnt gotten heated, is because any sane rational person reads views that the government either planned and executed, or let the 9/11 attacks happen, as completely retarded conjecture.. It accomplishes nothing, and the risk of it being found out is so great as to make any rewards far from worthwhile..
So the rest of us just walk away chuckling at you knuckle heads that think this is some evil conspiracy to kill us all..
Before I say anything, let me first say that I do not personally hold a "conspiracy theorist" view of 9/11. Of course, I don't take the spoon-fed government line, either. I'll leave what exactly my personal views are out of this discussion.
I'm primarily arguing such statements as the quoted one.
Let's consider what makes a "sane, rational" person sane and rational.
Code: Select all
sane. adj.
1. free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person.
2. having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice.
3. sound; healthy.
Fanger's statement essentially reads "any sane, rational person [believes] that views that the government either planned and executed, or let the 9/11 attacks happen, as completely retarded conjecture." (I've made what I believe to be one minor semantic change that does not change the meaning of the statement.)
Let us consider what it means to be sane. As given in the above definition, from dictionary.com, sane has two meanings: free from mental illness, and showing good reason. If Fanger's conjecture is true, and we are to accept that any sane person believes that the government did not plan and execute or allow to happen the 9/11 attacks, then we must believe that anyone who believes that the government
did either plan/execute the attacks or allow them to happen is not sane, i.e. insane.
Now, who tells us the majority of what we know about the 9/11 attacks? The media tells us. Who tells the media? Well, they have a variety of sources and do some investigative reporting on their own. However, the primary source of information about the 9/11 attacks is the government. I contend that it is accurate to say that the government, for all intents and purposes, communicates to us the "official", accepted, version of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The government, of course, tells us that it was not involved in the attacks in any way.
Let's assume that Fanger's statement is correct. Sane people believe the accepted version of events on 9/11. The accepted version of events on 9/11 is what the government tells us it is. Thus, sane people believe what the government tells them. Ergo,
anybody who does not believe what the government tells him or her is insane. QED.
Wait a second. Since when is not believing what the government tells you a sign of mental disorder? Is skepticism now listed alongside schizophrenia in the DSM? Well, sane does have another (colloquial) definition, "having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense". Is not accepting as true what the government tells you showing lack of reason? It is showing poor judgment? Is it showing a lack of good sense?
I submit to you that a sane, rational person does
not necessarily believe what the government says simply because the government says it. In fact, I further submit to you that a sane, rational person examines what the government says in light of the facts that are available, and that not doing so is a sign of simple-mindedness and stupidity, not sanity and rationality.
Of course, there's more issues that I could point out with that post. For example, accepting
any version of the 9/11 events is "conjecture", as "conjecture" is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof." As far as I am aware, no party has conclusively and rigorously
proven their story, and thus
all 9/11 explanations are conjecture - including the commonly accepted one!
Of course, this entire post was pointless; Fanger's post wasn't a reasoned argument, it was flippiant flamebait.
