There's a lot of interesting phenomena and coincidences, however that's really all they are: interesting. I've seen scientists debunk and endorse quite a few of the theories surrounding 9/11. It would be silly to draw any extraordinary conclusions from that. I don't remember the context, but trav brought up money. To be honest, that's a factor on both sides of the argument. Have a lot of people made money off of war? No question. There are a lot of other people, though, making money off of perpetuating these conspiracy theories. Does that mean every conspiracy theorist is insincere? Absolutely not. But that also doesn't mean every action the U.S. government/military takes is, at least initially, without some merit. People are more willing to believe in whatever fits into their world narrative, and for some people, Evil America is the only thing that fits their narrative.
Aaaaaaaaaaand... that's supposed to be an argument against them doing it on their own? Althought I think LPAs "R Word" policy should be more lax. I think I should be allow to say things and ideas are 'R Word'.
As far as I know none of the buildings went into free fall, maybe briefly at the most. WTC 7 wasn't far at all from the main towers and it's easy to find footage/photographs of it taking the full force of debris from them, and the damage that did. That and all the factors brought about by it made it collapse, in a way that made perfect sense for the sort of building it was. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm here we go. There's just two of the pages I have on it.
Well some people might find it offensive so that's why it was set in place, and saying something is physically or mentally disabled doesn't make sense, especially the way it was put. And also, something is like that, proves your immaturity level when it comes to debating topics. I think what EM is trying to say, although I do agree with him, is that AQ is actually more sophisticated than the American government will actually be, not some bunch of hotshot extreme Muslims as they are generally seen as. As to them having American involvement, I wouldn't put it past the government to be honest. Call it conspiracy I call it possibility, mainly because the Bush government just reeked from conspiracies from the moment he was "elected".
Agreed. They let us talk about all the various points that have been brought up in this thread, some of which could very well offend people (who cares), but they don't let us say certain words because it might offend people? Are people actually offended when people use "offensive" words out of context from their literal definition?
Sorry, regardless of your viewpoint on whether or not the word "retarded" can be taken in different contexts, the rule isn't going to change. It's been there since 2002 and wont be going anywhere anytime soon. Why? Because as Castiel mentioned prior, it can easily offend people who know people who are mentally handicapped, and there is simply no need to use it. There are so many words you can use in the place of "retarded" that campaigning for the rule to be more lax, just because you can't figure out a different word to use in it's place, makes no sense. You wouldn't call a mentally handicapped ("retarded") person stupid to their face so why use "retarded" as an adjective to mean something stupid? Please take a look at this website: http://www.r-word.org/ The word retarded is hurtful to people who are mentally handicapped (even if you don't mean to demean people who are) and therefore the rule will stand. I suggest you find a different word to use.
Claiming 9/11 was an inside job could also be hurtful to people. Or that the US was just using Al Qaeda as an excuse to get troops over there could be hurtful to people who've had loved ones killed overseas. If everyone here is mature enough to know that the people bringing up these different viewpoints aren't trying to directly offend anyone with those views, why can't we all be mature enough to realize people who talk using slang aren't trying to directly offend anyone? It's just how the English language is spoken by the majority of people under 30. As an example, your signature says "I'll punch a bitch". I have close friends who have been abused by their boyfriends and put in the hospital. I'm not going to hold it against you because, for one, you shouldn't have to know about other people and if you might offend them for you to speak or write what you want. Secondly, I know it's not directed at anyone who's been affected by abuse. You're not using it in an offensive manner. And lastly, I just don't care because I don't get emotional about things like that, but I could see where some people might think it's very distasteful. So, "retarded" or "gay" used in slang is against the rules, but hitting a few bitches here and there is ok? How about we all grow up and stop being so whiny about what people say?
The item in my signature is left over from when I had an image of Nicolas Cage in a bear suit punching someone in the face. It was in reference to that scene and never removed when I changed my signature. It has now been removed. However; what I find amazing is that you just claimed this isn't a big issue to you, yet in the same thread you and Blackee have made it a mission to completely derail the topic at hand in the interests of trying to prove a point. We're simply not going to allow "gay" or "retarded" in slang form any time soon, and it's a moot point trying to argue it. You saw the rules when you signed up, and you agreed to them as part of posting here. There are many people who follow the rules without any difficulty, and if you're going to claim we need to "grow up" why don't you "grow up" and accept you broke a rule and move on? You didn't get an infraction for it, and we let you off with just a warning which gives you no points. We gave you a break and yet you're chastising us for it? Get over it and get back on topic please. Furthermore, as much as I disagree with some of the offending viewpoints you've mentioned, they are part of having a debate. People are going to sometimes have views that offend you, and you're going to have to accept their opinions are different as much as you may hate them. If you can't handle that you shouldn't be in serious chat. However; it still doesn't give you a free reign to call things retarded or gay just because "everyone under 30 speaks that way". Shit, if someone jumped in front of a moving car cause it was fun, does that make it a good idea? I thought we got rid of the "I do it because they do it" excuse in elementary school.
I guess some people feel the need to break rules to prove a point. Which is pointless. Because you can prove a point without breaking rules.
/facepalm. From Osama being dead to 9/11 being a conspiracy to an argument about the use of the word r--ard. Too much time on some peoples hands?
Look, we give you the freedom to say just about any word you want. George Carlin's 7 dirty words - shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits. None of them are off limits. Use them all you want, we don't care. We simply ask that you don't use a small handful of words that offend a group of people. Is it really hard to use a word other than "retarded" when you want to describe something that's stupid? How about you just use "stupid", is that so bad? Throw a fuck in there, call it "fucking stupid" instead, we don't care. We have had this rule in place for the 9 years we've been a site and no one has had a problem with it except you. We must be doing something right. The rule regarding the use of "retarded" is not changing, and that's the end of discussion. Now let's drop this, drop the 9/11 conspiracy bullshit, and get back on topic.
I have something to say, and then I'm going to move on from this, because it has driven the thread off topic. I am a mom of two, and my oldest child is considered "special needs". As a result, she often comes home from school in tears because of little brats that call her all sorts of names, the R-word among them. Whether or not you use those words in a derogatory manner, they are going to offend someone, somehow. I might be beating a dead horse with this, but until you live in the shoes of a person that is actually retarded or has some other disability, or are the parent of a child that is, you will never know fully how upsetting it may be. Please try to respect that and don't make light of it by using those words so casually.
This whole thread is just ridiculous (See what I did there?) And more on topic, I can't believe there are people on these forums that legitimately even consider 9/11 a conspiracy. I usually think of the IQ level on these forums to be above average. I must say, I'm shocked.