The coming attack on ATS by MSM

reply to post by interestedalways


Ah yes the old ORDO AB CHAO trick .

We are seeing more and more of that in todays world .

Please tell me when the exception started proving the rule. Every news group receives thousands of leads everyday. They then have to go through all of these and find out which ones are legitimate and which ones are not. They are human so it is only expected for a mistake to slip through every once and a while. This doesn't mean that they haven't thoroughly checked every other story just because they slip up every one in a million times.

reply to post by Max_TO


I can tell you factually from inside experience that the media absolutely does fact checking.

reply to post by interestedalways

Originally posted by interestedalways
Problem
Reaction
Solution

Interesting concept indeed.

What is the solution to an individual's mental delusions?
Individual treatment for each individual case with varying severity.

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Xcalibur254


It has to do more with who reports on a story first and often checking the facts comes second .

Also , just who do you think is deciding for all of us what qualifies as news ?

And lastly , are you suggesting that its ok for the MSM to get the story wrong and its ok but its not ok for a person to exercise there rights of free speech and there right to believe whatever they like , and if they do its a sign of some form of mental illness ?

reply to post by Yoda411


Hmm this is a form of double think , I have just proven that they don't always check there facts before reporting and if you chose not to believe thats fine with me .

Perhaps I should be asking , what qualifies as fact checking ? I was under the impression that a fact was something factual , no ? so to report something that is not true means its not a fact ? Correct ?

reply to post by Max_TO


Just for the record the ABC article included interviews with two accredited psychologists.

reply to post by Yoda411


Experts my friend are a dime a dozen and if you are a insider you know that full well .

Lets cut to the chase here for a second , do you believe that people have the right to think and believe whatever they like or do you feel that it needs to be regulated ?

And what authority are you acting under to classify anyone who has a belief contrary to yours as being ill ?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Comments like those made by ABC are nothing new. Conspiracy researchers were making similar remarks back in the 60s and 70s. I really think people are making much too big a deal about this. And in fact these responses show exactly what the article was saying. People are taking an insignificant thing like this article and blowing it up into a whole conspiracy against ATS. That right there is paranoia.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Xcalibur254]

You are so right - it is extremely interesting that the media proclaims people who visit conspiracy sites are paranoid, and then ATS members turn it into a vast plot against ATS and them.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?

The media has correctly pointed out that there is a larger percentage of mentally ill people on conspiracy sites. Its just the facts. People have chosen to take that and blow it up into a enormous conspiracy against them, proving the media correct.

I think the number of CIA moles in here just doubled...

This is not a one line. A one liner might go: "My girls so fat I met her at the MAcy's Parade she was wearing ropes..."

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by Yoda411

 

Experts my friend are a dime a dozen and if you are a insider you know that full well .

Lets cut to the chase here for a second , do you believe that people have the right to think and believe whatever they like or do you feel that it needs to be regulated ?

And what authority are you acting under to classify anyone who has a belief contrary to yours as being ill ?

So called experts may be a dime a dozen but Psychologists require at the very minimum a PhD. So what are your credentials to question them?

People absolutely have the right to believe what they want. With that said, do you believe there is no line between reality and delusion?

Under the authority of psychiatry, some individuals hold beliefs which are [in fact] delusional and promoted by some on ATS.

Originally posted by Yoda411

So called experts may be a dime a dozen but Psychologists require at the very minimum a PhD. So what are your credentials to question them?

In your opinion does a person need credentials to question another person?

Under the authority of psychiatry, some individuals hold beliefs which are [in fact] delusional and promoted by some on ATS.

Under the authority, huh?

I see..............

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by Yoda411

So called experts may be a dime a dozen but Psychologists require at the very minimum a PhD. So what are your credentials to question them?

In your opinion does a person need credentials to question another person?

Under the authority of psychiatry, some individuals hold beliefs which are [in fact] delusional and promoted by some on ATS.

Under the authority, huh?

I see..............

That is clearly not what I am saying. A person needs credentials to be a reliable source of information.

I was asked under what authority can you separate someones beliefs from delusions, and it is under the authority of psychiatry.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty
   /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

Originally posted by Yoda411

I was asked under what authority can you separate someones beliefs from delusions, and it is under the authority of psychiatry.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty
   /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

The right to control.

That is the part of authority that concerns me.

Edit to trim quote per T&C.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by interestedalways]

reply to post by Yoda411


Who am I to set any line ? Who are you to for that matter ? Perhaps the government should set the line ? Or perhaps MSM should ?

So what if a person has a PHD , do people with PHD's not disagree with one another ?

reply to post by interestedalways


Is that the reason you would disagree with this article? Merely because you are afraid of the repercussions of it being correct? That is what I gather from many whom read it and disagreed. Either the fear of repercussions, or the misconception that they were called mentally ill.

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by Yoda411

 

Who am I to set any line ? Who are you to for that matter ? Perhaps the government should set the line ? Or perhaps MSM should ?

So what if a person has a PHD , do people with PHD's not disagree with one another ?

Once again I will ask you, do you not believe there are delusional individuals in the world?

If someone is happy, and you give them free concert tickets, they become extremely happy.

If someone is depressed, and you tell them their dog is dead, they become further depressed.

If someone is in the state of delusion, and you gave them misleading evidence to support their delusion, would that individual not be sunk further into his own delusion?

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by Yoda411

I was asked under what authority can you separate someones beliefs from delusions, and it is under the authority of psychiatry.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty
   /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

The right to control.

That is the part of authority that concerns me.

Edit to trim quote per T&C.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by interestedalways]

i agree totally. I in no way intend to turn this into a political thread but we have to consider the current state of affairs. we have Bush et al in power for such a long time and then the youth of the country gave their support en mass to obama - which regardless of what people may say is a big ideology change compared to the current president.

All of a sudden we started seeing things in the msm undermining the younger population and their beliefs. two examples are the ABC thing being discussed and also gov palin's remarks about bloggers being kids in pyjamas.

we may be seeing the beginnings of a campaign that tells the masses that ATS and other conspiracy theorists are crazies and their rants should just be ignored b/c they are immature and mentally unstable. We should instead listen to credible sources like the real news outlets like cnn and fox etc.

This idea is nothing new, actually.

I once made a thread about this subject based on a hoax article.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Yoda411


Yes I do , I think its a crime the way pop culture will dress up preteen girls as prostitutes and then put them on display for public consumption . In my mind thats a sign of mental illness . But we don't see the MSM bring out there PHD's to discuss that topic , in fact we only see it perpetuated .

As much as I am enjoying this debate I must go and get ready for work .
Please feel free to think or write whatever you like in the mean time

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by Yoda411

 

Yes I do , I think its a crime the way pop culture will dress up preteen girls as prostitutes and then put them on display for public consumption . In my mind thats a sign of mental illness . But we don't see the MSM bring out there PHD's to discuss that topic , in fact we only see it perpetuated .

As much as I am enjoying this debate I must go and get ready for work .
Please feel free to think or write whatever you like in the mean time

I agree, that is sick.