It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pepsi78
what secret societies? You keep bringing up the masons here and using that link to justify your paranoid delusions, and then you make statements like this claiming to know all about some deeply ingrained symbol for freedom? Really? And as for your evidence, it is opinion only. The only thing it can be used as evidence of, is that you need help.
The statue of liberty is masonic, masons built another version called "the statue of freedom" it's the same figure, same lady liberty.
Your quotes...
how is it possible that a statue commissioned in 1855 was made to challenge a statue that wasn't thought of until 1865?
What do you mean how is it possible ? Because it was a commun concept among masonry that is how it is possible, as evidence "the statue of freedom" was built before and same figure as "statue of liberty"
The statue of freedom was made also by a mason.
Does this answer your question ?edit on 18-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)
OK, granted I have only been a mason for 5 years, and I am sure I don't understand all of the symbology and teachings of the craft, but I am quite sure I would know about they "symbol for freedom" of there was such a thing in masonry. A statue of a women is referred to, but in a completely different context, and with a completely different meaning. You could learn a lot from Socrates.
A statue of a women is referred to, but in a completely different context, and with a completely different meaning. You could learn a lot from Socrates.
perdurabo10.tripod.com...
She is a beautiful motherly figure, with golden hair and wearing a crown of 12 stars.
Originally posted by pepsi78
It is clear that people in the background are running everything, for the union, for the collective, the New world order. It is organisations such as freemasonry and others that are pulling the strings behind the curtain.
Of course everything for a New World Order.
Pepsi has a lot of caffeine. Too much of it can make you hyper and impose the false belief that building statues based on spiritual principles equals wanting to tyrannize the world.
Originally posted by pepsi78
I don't drink coffee, I haven't for a very long time, now about statues, that is the EU flag is it not ?
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.
The term is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example might be: "If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me." However, there is no direct relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.
Two examples include:
-"If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog." (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.)
-"I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining." (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:
All Zs are Bs.
Y is a B.
Therefore, Y is a Z.
It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs," but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument.
Note that if the terms were swapped around in the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to "Only Zs can be Bs" then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound. This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.
An example can be given as follows:
Men are human.
Mary is human.
Therefore, Mary is a man.
Originally posted by TheLordVeack
post removed by staff
post removed by staff
post removed by staff
post removed by staff