John "Doomsday" Howard: I broke nose of Boston Marathon bombing suspect

Yeah, and I think it is so funny that no matter what issue you are talking about, there are going to be conspiracy theories that spring up, many of them in direct contradiction of one another. People will think anything and everything that happens in the world is a false flag operation, conspiracy of some secret cabal,/ etc. Some might be tempted to call this a sort of hyper-skepticism but it isn't at all; it's quite the opposite. They are so willing to swallow demonstrably flawed conspiracy theories which are completely implausible and at odds with all the physical evidence that they swallow them hook, line and sinker without any critical consideration. What makes it truly hilarious is that they then turn around and call the ones that are actually skeptical of those claims "blind," "sheeple," etc.

Best flash mob in history. I don't get into all of the contradictions on the official stories of the BMB or Sandy Hoax on a fighting forum. Think what you want. Either way, nothing will ever come of it.
 
I suppose all the aid in the world should really just go to the people that have it the worst.
That you think you are creating some clever reductio ad absurdum here, instead of stating an obvious truth, makes me genuinely sad. I suppose I have to accept aid and helping people in general is all about making yourself feel good, as opposed to improving the fortunes of those least well off to the best of our ability.

Well, the event was athletic and it was certainly explosive...
lol'd
 
Hours before the Shogun fight Jon Jones stopped a mugger apparently, lol.

People were calling him a real life super-hero. Even on Sherdog.

Now look at how it is.
 
Best flash mob in history. I don't get into all of the contradictions on the official stories of the BMB or Sandy Hoax on a fighting forum. Think what you want. Either way, nothing will ever come of it.

"Contradictions" in witness accounts or even in officials' explanations are not only acceptable, but expected. Often these supposed contradictions are based on very early, preliminary reports by either media or officials on the basis of incomplete and dodgy information before the truth can really be ascertained by anyone. These are then compared to the results of actually complete investigations/reports to establish "contradictions." It's the same shit over and over. Not everything is going to be a big conspiracy, but the theories pop up reliably and completely predictably after every dramatic news event.
 
That you think you are creating some clever reductio ad absurdum here, instead of stating an obvious truth, makes me genuinely sad. I suppose I have to accept aid and helping people in general is all about making yourself feel good, as opposed to improving the fortunes of those least well off to the best of our ability.


lol'd

So you do believe all charity should be saved strictly for the people that in some objective sense have it the very worst on the planet? Never mind donating to hungry kids in the developed world because they just end up with cognitive deficits and stunted growth while there are kids in Africa dying? There's also the concept of where your money can do the most good and it isn't always where the worst cases are. I donate to have cleft palates repaired in the developing world because I think you get a lot of bang for your buck by helping someone to live a normal life. Yes, they would have survived otherwise, and there are starving children in Africa, but children with easily correctable deformities often end up shunned by much of society, unable to find a spouse or often times to even support themselves through work.

Just because there are worse problems out there in terms of how bad someone has it doesn't mean all the aid should be devoted to those problems and nothing else. I was legitimately pointing out a fallacy of relative privation, not making some sort of jaded imprecation against charity as it seems you are interpreting it. This isn't exactly a controversial position to take if you understand anything of what is being said or the realities of the world we live in.
 
Yeah, and I think it is so funny that no matter what issue you are talking about, there are going to be conspiracy theories that spring up, many of them in direct contradiction of one another. People will think anything and everything that happens in the world is a false flag operation, conspiracy of some secret cabal,/ etc. Some might be tempted to call this a sort of hyper-skepticism but it isn't at all; it's quite the opposite. They are so willing to swallow demonstrably flawed conspiracy theories which are completely implausible and at odds with all the physical evidence that they swallow them hook, line and sinker without any critical consideration. What makes it truly hilarious is that they then turn around and call the ones that are actually skeptical of those claims "blind," "sheeple," etc.

I think you're painting a broad stroke with your brush. A lot of "conspiracy theorists" are just critical thinkers seeking truth. There's also a lot of lies thrown in with truth to discredit people who have a variance in opinion from main stream media.
Still, after three times asking for it you have yet to provide a link or the title to the video showing the crime being commited. As I stated earlier, I'm not saying they weren't involved, I'm saying I want proof, not your word.
 
I think you're painting a broad stroke with your brush. A lot of "conspiracy theorists" are just critical thinkers seeking truth. There's also a lot of lies thrown in with truth to discredit people who have a variance in opinion from main stream media.
Still, after three times asking for it you have yet to provide a link or the title to the video showing the crime being commited. As I stated earlier, I'm not saying they weren't involved, I'm saying I want proof, not your word.

Don't expect other people to educate you. It shouldn't be hard to find. Someone else said there was an entire documentary on the topic which included the footage I mentioned I'm sure.

I don't have to discredit the people I see stridently proclaiming how obviously true the conspiracy theories are. And it's every. Fucking. Time. And as a true critical thinker, it isn't hard to point how just where they are going wrong on all of their stupid interpretations of facts or just wild assumptions and speculation. I've yet to find a major conspiracy theory that wasn't fairly easy to debunk.

A little advice: if you find yourself being drawn into a CT, try looking for an opposing viewpoint, say someone claiming to debunk said theory and consider both sides. Don't just endlessly consume the CT claims like so many do.
 
I think you're painting a broad stroke with your brush. A lot of "conspiracy theorists" are just critical thinkers seeking truth. There's also a lot of lies thrown in with truth to discredit people who have a variance in opinion from main stream media.
Still, after three times asking for it you have yet to provide a link or the title to the video showing the crime being commited. As I stated earlier, I'm not saying they weren't involved, I'm saying I want proof, not your word.

I don't even know why you guys beat this matter to death, but I share your view on the whole mainstream media corruption and falsifying of news. But that should be clear to everyone who pursuits truth: there's always more than one side to a story.
 
wasn't the Zimmerman trial televised? and many others the past year? You would think this case would get a crazy amount of attention in the media, but it seems not

I'm sorry I should have been more specific, it seems cameras aren't allowed in U.S. district courts according to this article. This is unfortunate I wish this trial would have been televised I think it is far more interesting that the Zimmerman trial.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/06/04/cameras-federal-courtroom

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...mainstay-in-the-national-news/article/2558214
 
I watched the documentary, it's called, marathon day. It's on youtube. There is no video evidence of them perpetrating the crime, just stills of the suspects in the area. If anything the film reminded me that everything I said in my original statement is accurate. You have not provided anything to sway my opinion. A drill was occuring during the event that mimiced what actually occured. The suspects uncles is former CIA. Crisis actors were used. Russia warned us of their suspicious activity in Chechnia. Am I missing something?

Oh and all I can find on them planting the device, is stills and heresay. No evidence, just that the FBI claims they have evidence. If they did have such proof,wouldn't this be an open and shut case? Rather than a trial years in the making?
 
I've been a fan of Howard for a while. Hope it's a good fight. I've been rather disappointed in both of their fights lately.
 
I beat up one of the 911 hijackers. We were in Jihad class together.

You dropped out after getting some infidel girl pregnant?
Nothing to be proud of.

article-2307317-193BBE4C000005DC-849_308x425.jpg
 
So you do believe all charity should be saved strictly for the people that in some objective sense have it the very worst on the planet?
An inescapable implication of prioritarianism, and frankly, most believe invoke prioritarianism implicitly all the time, they just forget to think about people outside the borders of their country, or even outside of whatever class of badly off people they are concerned with.

Never mind donating to hungry kids in the developed world because they just end up with cognitive deficits and stunted growth while there are kids in Africa dying?
If you can make the case that the hungry kids in the developed world are more deserving and that your contribution would do more good there, by all means. Examine their level of well being, what brought it about and the marginal value of your contribution. That's the kind of analyis you'd have to.. of course it cannot be done without a workable theory of how "goodness" is measured. And such a theory is not at all trivial and remains an unsolved ethical problem, especially if the future is taken into account, but one of the necessary components, founded on strong intuition, is that some degree of prioritarianism is involved. Arguing that prioritarianism is hugely important within the borders of your country but wholly unimportant otherwise isn't going to stand up to scrutiny.
There's also the concept of where your money can do the most good and it isn't always where the worst cases are. I donate to have cleft palates repaired in the developing world because I think you get a lot of bang for your buck by helping someone to live a normal life. Yes, they would have survived otherwise, and there are starving children in Africa, but children with easily correctable deformities often end up shunned by much of society, unable to find a spouse or often times to even support themselves through work.
You're saying you get more bang for your buck than by helping the starving kids in Africa? Looks like your theory of how goodness is measured might have some rather undesirable implications about the value of preventing death.


Just because there are worse problems out there in terms of how bad someone has it doesn't mean all the aid should be devoted to those problems and nothing else. I was legitimately pointing out a fallacy of relative privation, not making some sort of jaded imprecation against charity as it seems you are interpreting it. This isn't exactly a controversial position to take if you understand anything of what is being said or the realities of the world we live in.
I'm very sceptical the decision to give aid to those near you, emotionally or geographically, is the outcome of thinking through the ethics of aid, closely examining how much good your money can do and how to weigh that goodness depending on characteristics of the recipient. That is at best how such decisions are rationalized.

The psychologists and economists provide a much more compelling explanation. People get outraged watching tee vee about some issue near them, tweet about it, give some aid and feel good about themselves. That's the reality of the world we live in.
 
Wayweary is getting jackedin this thread.:icon_lol:
 
Which of those causes gets NO attention? And how are they "completely" preventable?

Say something as ridiculous as you just did, you should provide some sort of evidence for the claim.

And act like it's not a big deal when you had your legs sheared off your body or lost a family member. Also, it's not like this is an isolated incident. It is a recurring event that occurs around the world.

You're already making assumptions, I never said it wasn't a big deal for the people personally involved. The only thing ridiculous is how much attention every random terrorist incident and school shooting gets; I mean I understand why the media likes to scaremonger the people about these things because these events are very dynamic and tragic, but many more important causes of death don't get attention. Especially when the coverage itself doesn't lead to any type of fix, especially in the case of terrorism where I would argue that some of US' actions are only helping to create more terrorism, but that is a not the point here.

Terrorist attacks are recurring, but you're entirely overestimating the threat in the US. If we were talking about the Middle East, I would say you're probably correct. Here are some statistics to prove what I'm saying. Over 1000 people every year die of lung cancer due to radioactive radium gas seeping through cracks in a foundation. This exposure causes massive damage to the body because radium(a breakdown from Uranium in the ground), shoots off alpha and beta particles in the lungs. One cell with damaged DNA can cause cancer. This is preventable because foundations can be sealed to a better degree(most haven't had it done in decades), and there are detectors that would allow people to escape from the level of exposure that causes death. Keep in mind that this is only one of many pollutants, some of which have been put in our food in the past and present; or in cities, more or less with a good level of knowledge that it would cause 1000s of deaths. Yet rarely does the media spend a whole week discussing that, because it isn't sexy enough. Or how about the ~100000 deaths every year from avoidable medical errors.

We have a war on terrorism, yet a cop is 9 times more likely to kill a person, and that is comparing US numbers to global terrorism numbers. Hell, comparing the numbers a citizen of US is 187 times more likely to die of nutritional deficiencies than a terrorist attack. If the government want to attack something that was actually a real threat that contributes to many deaths they would attack the Cartels who provide the majority of drugs in USA, considering they cause many deaths every year and more or less do whatever they want in Mexico. They're even beginning to move in to the US, but rarely is there any coverage of that. In fact there is some evidence that suggests the CIA might have a partnership with some of the cartel leaders. In our shitty legal system the bottom rung drug dealers are given many years for selling once or even implication of selling, while leaders are often given as few as 10-15 years. The fact is that terrorist attacks get coverage because it is tragic and seen as an attack on the entire country, not because the threat is really that large. And the one time something really pivotal happened in a terrorist attack(9/11), there is evidence that politicians knew it was coming beforehand and didn't stop it. Seems pretty fishy considering the CIA has released files during the conflict with Cuba that detailed a plan to crash a plane in to a building and blame it on Cuba to get people on their side for a war. Here is the link to the statistics articlehttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/youre-nine-times-likely-killed-police-officer-terrorist.html.

Now that I have written a novel that you probably won't even read, I am done. I've wasted too much time already in responding.
 
Back
Top