Quote:
|
Quote by: PatrickHenry Proof is not what we do here, caspian. Debate is the presentation of evidence. We have no subpoena powers and our testimony from witnesses is not under oath. But there is incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of a Shadow Government, even if it is to be utilized only in times of crisis. Many things exist that cannot be proven in a court of law. Prove love.
Prove either the existence or non-existence of God. One of those propositions is the correct one, but proving it is another matter, isn't it? So what we are limited to here is presenting evidence. Some of us have our minds closed on uncomfortable subjects. To consider them creates too much internal stress.
Don't feel obligated to investigate this line of inquiry if you find it distressing. There are plenty of hopeful things to focus on... |
Let's settle this one at a time, shall we?
"Debate is the presentation of evidence."
Debate is also the utilization of that evidence, but that's another matter. If you can present evidence, you must do it. I'll explain why later.
"We have no subpoena powers and our testimony from witnesses is not under oath."
You really shouldn't need those if you can prove the existence of said Shadow Government. No group of people is so perfect that they cannot make mistakes. If you have evidence, present it.
"But there is incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of a Shadow Government, even if it is to be utilized only in times of crisis."
So then, what is it? You have proof, why don't you show it? Is it that you don't actually have proof, that you don't want to show proof, or that you are lazy? There aren't many other options here. Do you want me to take this on faith? I'm afraid, with something so sinister, I can't do that. No rational human being should,in my opinion.
"Many things exist that cannot be proven in a court of law. "
And what are these things? 'Inalienable rights?' Those don't actually exist, except in common convention. Numbers don't actually exist, but are an invention of ours used to organize things. There are things that do not exist, but they are used because they are convenient. However, most of the time, they aren't things that can cause life or death solely with themselves, but only if misused.
"Prove love."
Love is a word describing the chemical reaction in the brain that makes someone want to be around a particular person. It's also a device invented by bank managers to make you overdrawn. It's an abstract concept invented for convenience. It's a religion, in a strange way.
"Prove either the existence or non-existence of God."
God is an invention, like love, to explain something - why we are here. It cannot be proven, because it doesn't exist. However, this isn't relevant to the discussion of a giant Shadow Government. This government must be organized, if it is as you obviously believe it to be. There must be people who meet at times, somehow, to discuss plans. There must be events attributable to this group. The JFK assassination, perhaps? That's a common one. Why cannot you prove the existence of something you so firmly believe to be true?
Is it your own religion?
"So what we are limited to here is presenting evidence. Some of us have our minds closed on uncomfortable subjects."
Well, you either have evidence, or you don't. You're a rational person, as near as I can tell. Would you believe in something that doesn't truly exist, for no other reason that it makes things easier to explain? That's religion, and you can't prove it. Why should we then listen to you, if our lives could be at risk if you're wrong?
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a giant organization bent on total world domination other than Starbucks. However, I'm not going to risk my life or those of others for the sake of something that doesn't exist - I always default on the side of nonexistence if there's no evidence. Please, show your evidence, because otherwise what you're saying really only amounts to the ravings of a madman.