The fallacy is to negate the differences in the name of the initial antagonism between being and nothingness. Either it's different, and basically it's nothing or it to be, and basically, it's always the same. A fine example of sophistry is given to us in our time by the end of the game's official propaganda system, taking the name of journalists for us pour unashamedly skewed unconditional and glory of the moribund system. Thus they contrive the evidence against us that the OV of serine 911 would be true on behalf of the absence of truth and that any disputes would fall from a deviant mental stamped, conspiracy (or conspiracy theories).
A journalist working on the plateau of worldly French animator Durand explains with a straight face that it would be naive stride because it would support the VO 911. The naive use of the term is well chosen: it expresses the thought of non-selected position. In this case, if the nominee did not think Bonnaud support for the OV 911, one can understand the palpable and startling. But then, even with this excuse, he makes fun of viewers: for if he did not think the 911, now hears that he his opinion to the punch?
Bonnaud faces the host cynical and sinister Ardisson and one wonders which of the two thieves this mine the most devastated. Ardisson looks like a zombie; Bonnaud a clown. Between the two, the ball of hypocrisy has already begun. Instead of giving us to hear more opinions allowed, such as the investigative journalist Eric Laurent, the choice of Durand is emblematic of concealment that exists in the French media: always choose incompetent and trivial judgments among peoples . The case of
Ardisson is a grotesque example, because if Ardisson customizes freedom of expression to the prohibited broken, both quit after expenses. Ardisson is for freedom of expression provided it brings scandal and it adapts to the survival of the fittest. Bonnaud but is less influential qu'Ardisson and practice a kind of irresponsible bidding does not hesitate to pour into the grossest fallacy. To answer the doubts of Ardisson, he engages in a totally theoretical demonstration, in the worst thread of tradition Cartesian most questionable: under the pretext of making use of critical thinking, does the assumptions in the abstract and ethereal, so that the judge is certain to be wrong, best to stick to small talk informally.
Bonnaud conidtion that supports the arch false VO 911, using an approach has prioriste condemns himself to deceive the surest ways:
"But nothing surprises me in this story because it's like an event, in essence it is amazing! That's the history of conspiracy theories. is that like any event, it should not have take place, as any true event, and it just took place ... From here you can rave, but ... "
Coupons insipid prose here Bonnaud, the terrorist thought that terrorize journalists. Bonnaud really illustrates the Cartesian evil spirit that grows in France the so-called brainy TV show to experience an entirely abstract. So, in addition there will never be any checks for about a charlatan also, importantly, is the best way to drop the error in the lack of verification.
What is the big mistake that contains about Bonnaud? It is when he states pompously that an event is surprising . The event is what happens. Pace Bonnaud, an event is normal in the course of reality. Which can be held is not surprising that there are events, but events are. About a Plato, but Bonnaud illustrates the shift of direction toward the immanent mentality, which is surprising, not that things are, but there are things. Encased in immanence, one should wonder at the astonishing character of immanent event.
The process of immanent Bonnaud condemned to Anyway the error. The astonishment which it claims is an obvious contradiction, since we can surprise an event within the unfolding events. It is not surprising that in the event as the event has to be, there is an externality to the event.
Under these conditions, Bonnaud practice sophistry in the Platonic sense since it abolishes the difference between the extraordinary and ordinary According to him, anything is surprising in the event. This grotesque lie could be interpreted as a manifestation of imbecility of Bonnaud, in this era of social disintegration and culture where school diplomas and academic issue a form of mimicry that teaches well again, but that leads directly to the slavish mimicry mimicry fool.
No wonder then that Bonnaud, having legitimized the extraordinary and cut down the barriers between the normal and the wonder, says blandly (naively, it would correct) that is amazing what happens . The amazing thing is necessary. One might sarcastically suggest that the amazing thing is the explosive But it would be a bad pun about 911 (the naive Bonnaud might not understand). The conspiracy of conspiracies distinguished by refuting the amazing and extraordinary nature of the event. The plot is hilarious in that it refutes the normality of the extraordinary.
Bonnaud has come to a point of distortion of reality when he says anything. Just take the trouble to decipher his speech full of nonsense, contradiction and impossibility to realize that it proceeds by projecting (like most people): blaming the conspiracy theory when it is delirious his speech delirium by amalgamating the ordinary and the extraordinary. Bonnaud is in a tradition of immanence Conservative extremist tendency which we come to deny the real name of the extraordinary, while the conspiracy act as protesters immanentists realizing that this strategy until endian is suicidal and should return to a moderate immanentism acknowledging that the abnormal is amazing.
Bonnaud is presented as a naive, which could be interpreted as a tacit admission of his mistake, but instead due to its immanent concept: it is naive because it is on the surface of things until the obtuse stubbornness. An event is characterized by what is said about him by what he shows us immediately. Afterwards, close the curtain. The plot is already a heresy, that is to remember that there are possibilities that the event differs in its production of how it appears on the surface. Yet the plot is in the sphere of mentality of immanence, but a more progressive immanentism immanentism infected and displayed by a pretentious Bonnaud. The plot
explain everything by means of plots, or stay in the explanation by desire, but with the recognition that desire can be hidden and abnormal. The plot recognizes that desire can include malfunctioning, when the Conservatives (even progressive stated) as Bonnaud refutes the possibility of a malfunction. Bonnaud to the idea of conspiracy is intolerable because it destroys the layout of her beautiful plaything. Bearing, we're in an era of systemic collapse that would make him more cautious in his remarks. But like the most ardent devotees of a system, it is no longer possible to retreat. Our naive
lantern has gone too far in advocating unconditional bankruptcy system to be able to backtrack. It's a pity for him, because populations of the West, which are compromised in the Apology Silent and hypocritical of the Western system (liberalism in all its forms), a large majority agree that 911 is the catalytic event which marks the transition from a system that still operates at about a system that is collapsing and to deal lies shamelessly. The Americans are now aware that their depths of the OV 911 is a lie. And a survey in Germany reflects this trend that would apply perhaps to France, however, conservative and refusing to see the obvious:
http://www.reopen911.info/News/2011/01/25/90-des-allemands-ne-croient-pas-a-la-version-officielle-sur-le- 119 /
Almost 9 out of 10 Germans refutes this version. Therefore, it could be taken seriously these spineless sheep unable to act, which, realizing that lies to them gravely, yet remain petrified in their corner, waiting piteously the shipwreck in which they are embedded . No doubt Western populations, who face increasingly lies of their elected leaders and the media propaganda, do not have the means and resources to prevent systemic collapse. To act, we should not be a sheep. It is not by bleating that the wolves will move away, unless a miracle. Bonnaud believe in miracles?
0 comments:
Post a Comment