Mistakes people make in Judgment

Strategic behavior can be irrational insofar as it deviates from rational and sustainable behavior depending on the environment and teleology of events.  It would be silly to blame a person in an irrational environment for behaving strategically, since that person couldn’t survive any other way.  Likewise strategic behavior in a rational environment is more egregious but people seem to be able to get away with it by making certain emotional appeals and throwing histrionic fits.

In the Harry Potter movie, Harry behaves strategically and uses his magick and irrational act, in a rational environment, but he is provoked by a Dementor attacking himself and his relative.  So, teleologically speaking he behaved irrationally in a rational environment after being provoked by an irrational action, why is this ok?

 

Jus ad bellum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Just cause/ Right intention[edit]

According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred.

 

Proportionality[edit]

The principle of proportionality stipulates that the violence used in the war must be proportional to the attack suffered. For example, if one nation invades and seizes the land of another nation, this second nation has just cause for a counterattack in order to retrieve its land. However, if this second nation invades the first, reclaims its territory, and then also annexes the first nation, such military action is disproportional.

 

Last resort[edit]

The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

What is interesting with people and their judgments nowadays, is that people respond with horror when a rational person defends themselves against an irrational person that is forcing a confrontation, as if there is a virtue in letting psychopaths force their will on everybody and get away with it.  This just emboldens them to do it again in the future.

Contemplate if you will, the rules governing gun play in the cowboy days, shooting an unarmed man was an act of murder, but shooting an armed man was acceptable because shit happens.  Now what is interesting is that today you have psychopathic structures of authority in relationship with protecting and expanding their authority, and they have an incentive in a situation where the rational person defends himself and wins, to fly in the face of reason and rule against the righteous person defending themselves against the lawless, irrational man.

 

Sexual Confidence and Purse size.

 

One of the bizarre things about being me despite the uncanny ability for pattern recognition is that I like to observe people and figure out how they think.  They call me the “Mindhacker” because I can get inside their heads and look from their perspective.  Well here is this tasty little morsel.  The size of a woman’s purse directly reflects the amount of sexual confidence she has.  If she is sexually confident the purse will be small, if she isn’t sexually confident, even if she deserves to be she will have a large leathery satchel.  

Organic Computer Theory Reduced

Everything said, done, and thought communicates to the individual organic computer that they are either surviving well or surviving poorly.  This is the binary code of organic computers.  Relational data communicates how the object is in relationship with the subject.  If you observe the behavior of the individual organic computer they will leak emotional data how they are interpreting the event, and the event itself might have emotional data.  Analytical data is the overt content and meaning of the event.  Relational data also tells us how the organic computer is in relationship with whatever was said, done, or thought, and this is leaked through body language, tone of voice, micro-expressions, and physical or verbal response. 

Richard Dawkins Linguistic Fetish.

 

Being a psycholinguist and a linguistic philosopher, I have developed myself a linguistic fetish.  In philosophy there is what I refer to as the linguistic barrier, which is to say that you can only get so smart, you can only progress so far as a philosopher without understanding intimately the way that language works.  Linguistics. 

One of the ways you know that a person has approached or crossed that barrier is usually by the presence of a linguistic fetish.  Mike Myers has one, Will Ferrel has one, I have one.  Ayn Rand didn’t have one and she despised linguistic philosophers.  Which might be why she was a revolutionary propagandist and not a philosopher. 

Now what is curious to me is that until recently I have not seen any evidence of Richard Dawkins having a linguistic fetish until now.  He fetishizes the word paedophilia, instead of spelling it in the normal way.  Why does he do this?  Is he creating a dichotomy in his mind between types of pedophilia?  and good and bad pedophilia?  Or is he making it more sophisticated?  Mike Myers, Will ferrel, and myself use our linguistic fetish when we are being humorous.  But Richard Dawkins used it when he was being sincere and honest and a little too frank.  I know how language works, and I know how the mind works.  This event is more telling than many would like to think, he tipped his hand. 

 

RELATED ARTICLES

• http://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/the-linguistic-barrier-in-philosophy/

Id Ego and Super Ego in Richard Dawkins

 

 I am going to describe how I use my methods to construct details psychological profiles of people.  In every human psyche there are the son, the mother, and the father.  

The id is the persons issues, and delusions their diseases mental and emotional.  Children are born being delusional and incapable of dealing with reality or the truth in it’s uncorrupted form.  For this reason the mother exists, the existence of the child validates the authority of the mother who protects the child from reality but she also protects the child’s mental and emotional diseases as well.  As the child reaches the end of the mother’s authority the child comes under the authority of the father, who prepares the child to be a functional part of the world, removing the mental and emotional diseases from the child.  

Now what happened with Dawkin’s and what happens with Psychopaths is that they refuse the last stage of evolution, the neural myelination of the frontal lobe that governs right and wrong and relationship.  He clings to ego because he clings to the disease. He is a histrionic psychopath.  He clings to the frame that he was victimized by religion, and he invites other people not only to also feel victimized by religion but to champion his cause.  It is really fascinating observing how strategic psychopaths can be and how much time and energy they will spend devising plans to manipulate people so that they can feel that their issues are correct.  What are his issues?  (https://psykolinguist.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/richard-dawkins-deconstructed-by-the-mindhacker/)

Now with histrionic psychopaths they use their damage or perceived damage in this case as a source of power and energy, they keep that ball of morbid emotion alive and seething.  Now what is interesting is that the psychopath can’t appear to be the instigator, they have to appear to be the victim.  Why is he damaged?  Because he was shamed for his sexual inclinations or orientation, (read the link, I am not re-explaining myself).  According to his perspective he was molested by being shamed, but not harmed by being molested, and he resents the shaming, which is why he tries to humiliate and ridicule religious people.  According to shared state theory of communication, a person communicates whatever state they are in.  To my knowledge Dawkins has not yet described the shaming and I will explain why, he says he was not “permanently damaged” by the sexual contact with his teacher.  What I know is that her feels he was permanently harmed by the shaming.  Now what is interesting is that If he told us why he was shamed, and how he actually feels, SOCIETY would reject his ideas and perspective, because what he actually feels is socially unacceptable, which is why he is concealing it and also why the repression continues and also why he is permanently wounded, and he blames religiosity for it.  

Now the sum of a psychopath’s actions have to take them towards doing their will.  So in the form of the conquest they repeat you can see what they are trying to do or undo.  Dawkins is trying to create an environment and a world where what he really wants can be indulged.  As I have shown in the other article he is creating an environment for children where they can learn and be exposed to the casual contempt of others for religion, this is evidenced by the material I have gleaned from observing dawkinite trolls on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/).  

Now you have the cause of the good and the cause of the bad, which makes in the person’s narrative the form of the good or their god and the form of the bad, which is the opposite of their highest good.  As I have demonstrated in Dawkin’s narrative, he frames himself as the victim of religiosity, that was the first cause, the teleological error, not that his sexual inclinations are frowned upon and socially unacceptable today, by our standards, but he feels molested by having been instilled with sense of shame at something that is now socially unacceptable.  So from his perspective and in his narrative, his personal mental association with (sexual arousal, science, education) is the form of the good and very much associated with his personal happiness and his sense of self.  If you look at my plasticity of the sense of self theory you know we automatically and unconsciously expand and retract our sense of self in a way that appears arbitrary but is not.  What is the form of his conquest? (fagging, the humiliation of inferiors or the opposite of the form of the good), and what is the form of the bad?  (religiosity, shame, moral authority)  remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  

It is amazing to me how people can choose to stay in relationship with the disease and protect the disease and even nurture the disease.  Psychopaths are so good at manipulating other people while concealing who they are.  They act harmless, like victims and bypass everyone’s threat filter.  I HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED!  YOU HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED!  WE ARE BEING VICTIMIZED!  WE MUST TURN THE TIDE ON OUR ABUSERS!  GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS AND YOUR TORCHES AND YOUR NOOSES AND FOLLOW ME TO THE INTERWEBZ!  So he gets people to extend their sense of self to him and his issues, concealing what is really going on.  And once everybody is facing the “enemy” and attacking the enemy, then he reveals his real self.  

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly tyrants rise to power and with the aid of everyone around them.  I have often thought that the tyrant is a reflection of the people that worship him, and if you remove the tyrant they will replace him with the exact same type of tyrant.  This was recently confirmed for me with the democratic elections in the Muslim worlds.  

 

 

Richard Dawkins Deconstructed by the Mindhacker.

So, I am going to practice describing Richard Dawkins inner world based on my psychological models and using my terms.  It is good for me to practice describing peoples profiles so I get used to using my thought technology (terms).  Religious language, in a manner of speaking, describes our internal world or the way we think the world works.  Our internal world is our soul, or our gestalt, it is our understanding of the world.  Now what is interesting with some atheists with the conceit that god doesn’t exist is that they don’t have any system for describing their internal world workings, which is to say they can’t scrutinize themselves.  Now I created my psycholinguistic model for detecting psychopaths while I was observing troll behavior on social networking sites.  Psychopaths conceal their true self and represent themselves falsely.  My model was created to understand the soul of people that were concealing themselves and revealing themselves strategically, people that don’t want to be understood.

Richard Dawkins, narrative recently changed, in his book, THE GOD DELUSION he mentions that a female associate of his said emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse and that he agrees with her.  Then recently this statement changed to, I was physically abused and I can’t condemn mild pedophilia.  One of the things I do in my deconstruction of narrative is learn to distinguish between authentic behavior and strategic behavior.  The second piece is closer to his true narrative (what is actually going on in his head)  but he is still concealing, although he did sidle up to his true narrative a little.  Now we look for variations on the narrative, and look for different deviations of narrative, and potentially contradictions.  One could say “nancy is a little loose” “nancy is a floozy” or “nancy is a slut.”  Each statement communicates slightly different data and characterizes the person speaking and the relationship between the two objects.  “I was molested and I can’t condemn it” in no way contradicts the narratives, “I enjoyed it” or “I wouldn’t mind doing it”.  So just like minesweeper we are going to go through his other actions and statements all of which are tautologies from his world view, as we think, so we speak, and so we act, unless you are a psychopath and concealing yourself, but we have the MIND HACKER on our side.

(http://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/everything-i-know-looks-through-me/)

Richard Dawkins was habituated into an environment that was highly sexually charged at a young age, boys punished each other sexually, and they rewarded each other sexually too, C.S. Lewis experienced this behavior in school, the boys called it tarting and fagging.  Dawkins also had a teacher that rewarded the boys with sexual attention, and put his hands in his pants at one point and knocked his junk around.  People have a normative bias, they think what is normal is good.  Although Dawkins portrays himself as a victim of circumstances as a tacit emotional appeal, I suspect that he actually enjoyed the environment, and the sexual attention and we will get into why later.  It is also important to mention that in Richard Dawkin’s mind, learning is associated with sexual arousal (and so is teaching), from his experience, teaching and learning are sexy and arousing.

Psychopaths perseverate in their behavior and internal narrative.  Psychopaths can’t reform they only become more manipulative.

In psychology and psychiatry, perseveration is the repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.^[1] Symptoms include “the inability to switch ideas along with the social context, as evidenced by the repetition of words or gestures after they have ceased to be socially relevant or appropriate,”^[2] or the “act or task of doing so,”^[3] and are not better described as stereotypy (a highly repetitive idiosyncratic behaviour).

The mind is averse, and it reacts against things it doesn’t like.  This eventually creates the form of the conquest for psychopaths.  Being morbidly in relationship with their issues and in the case of a histrionic psychopath clinging to those issues instead of seeking mental health, they need to change or attack whoever they blame for whatever their mind is averse to.  So what is Richard Dawkins mind averse to?

He is averse to shame and he blames Religion as the cause of the bad for his shame.  Now when he says “child abuse” he is referring to emotional abuse and when we say emotional abuse we mean shame, specifically sexual shame.

Notice the association between not being able to enjoy your life, and god not existing?  That is the way he is mentally in relationship with god.  If god exists it means you don’t get to enjoy your life.  Because of sexual shame.  So now we look for repeating occurrences in his behavior and narrative for sexual shame, what do we find?  Do we find a perseveration of emotional morbidity?

Out Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Out Campaign is a public awareness initiative for freethought and atheism. It was initiated by Dr. R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and is endorsed by Richard Dawkins, who is a prominent atheist.^[1][2]

 

“There is a big closet population of atheists that need to come out.”  Richard Dawkins

R. Elisabeth Cornwell has stated that the gay rights movement was a source of inspiration for the campaign.^[5] The campaign, however, encourages one to “out” only oneself; it invites atheists to:

• Reach out and talk to others about atheism and help spread a positive view of atheism
• Speak out about their own beliefs and values without feeling intimidated, thus helping people realize that atheists don’t fit stereotypes and are a very diverse group
• Keep out, meaning to promote the idea that religion should be kept out of public schools and government, and that nobody’s religious agenda should be allowed to intimidate
• Stand out and become visible in their communities and become involved. An offshoot of Stand out is the Non-Believers Giving Aid campaign, which has raised money to help out in the aftermath of disaster. The A+ symbol used in the campaign refers to Atheists Standing out for their activism in social and humanitarian efforts.

So we see he was inspired by a campaign for reversing the sexual shame of the stigma associated with being gay.  How do they identify themselves?

The campaign aims to create more openness about being an atheist by providing a means by which atheists can identify themselves to others by displaying the movement’s scarlet letterA, an allusion to the scarlet letter A worn by Hester Prynne after being convicted of adultery in Nathaniel Hawthorne‘s The Scarlet Letter.^[3] It encourages those who wish to be part of the campaign to come out and re-appropriate, in a humorous way, the social stigma that in some places persists against atheism, by branding themselves with a scarlet letter.

Again we see the recurring theme of sexual shame.  What this signals to me is that he is concealing something that was very powerful and he is very averse to, and that was caused by his being shamed, by a religious person, and that is why the form of his conquest is to attack and marginalize religion, and humiliate and ridicule religious people.  Let’s see if we can’t piece together more of his narrative.

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

So exactly where do morals come from?  And what are your morals Richard Dawkins?  Some of his arguments suggest that humans are innately moral.  I find this interesting.  I think he is suggesting that his morals are good which means that he doing what he wants is innately correct.  Because men are innately good, and we shouldn’t be being good because somebody is watching us or threatening us.  Are you starting to get the picture yet?  Let’s take it a step further, what of the morals of a psychopath or a sociopath or a child molester?  If people are innately good than whatever their morals allow them to do is also innately good.  How does he propose we agree on what is good and moral?  Should we turn Science into a religion?  and then science can tell us what is moral?  I mean this is coming from the man that wants to eradicate religion.  Should our morals come from the government?

RELATED ARTICLES

• http://workinginhighheels.com/blog/lietome/
• http://www.salon.com/2014/04/05/richard_dawkins_is_so_wrong_it_hurts_what_the_science_vs_religion_debate_ignores/
• http://samkriss.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/richard-dawkins-and-the-ascent-of-madness/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html
• http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2013/05/all-narrative-is-doxography.html

EVERYTHING I KNOW LOOKS THROUGH ME.

Thought Uncommon

Everthing that I know looks through me at the world, every experience, every book I have read, every interaction I have had, every person I have loved.

Aristotle, “The soul is in a way phenomena.”

My experiences in the world, of the world, look back at the world. What I know of the world turns again on the world and scrutinizes it.

God be thanked for books; they are the voices of the distant and the dead, and make us heirs of the spiritual life of past ages.Channing, William Ellery

Every time you touch the world the world leaves its mark on you and you on it.  Like two ponds touching each other and both rippling in response.  If relationship is an approaching, then how are you in relationship with relationship?  How do you approach approaching?  You judge and interpret the world and the world judges and interprets you…

View original post 209 more words

Ayn Rand, Falsified.

So, how do we go about falsifying Ayn Rand’s “philosophy”?  We could mention that she was addicted to meth amphetamines during almost her entire career, but some would consider that an attack on her character and not on her philosophy.  We could mention that she modeled two of her main characters after a man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman) that kidnapped and dismembered a little girl, but that doesn’t mean that her philosophy is wrong, does it?  It might even be taken as an emotional appeal.  We could mention that after positing a pure meritocracy of capitalism, she immediately gave the character representing herself a discount because she was pretty, kind of a way of flattering herself.  But that seems petty and trivial.  We could mention that she basically said that nobody can call themselves an objectivist unless she says they are an objectivist and she can retract the status at any time if she doesn’t like what you are doing, that makes her philosophy arbitrary in a way, but I kind of see the need to control your own brand.  We could mention that the only influence she ever admitted to was Aristotle, the father of science, thus making herself the greatest philosopher since Aristotle which means all the philosophers between herself and Aristotle didn’t really matter or make an impact.  We could mention that she concealed the prodigious contribution of Nietzsche, to her philosophy because he was also a huge influence on Hitler, it was also his regime that invented Meth amphetamines, to which she was addicted, but all of those things are kind of attacks on her character. 

But this is how we are going to falsify her.  Alan Greenspan was asked why he didn’t see the sub-prime mortgage drop out coming.  His response was that he thought all of the players in the stockmarket were “rational”.  Some of you might know he was one of her closest disciples.  Now what is interesting is that he is not using the Objectivist definition of Rational which Ayn Rand herself defined as greed.  In order to make himself correct he is using the normal definition of rational.  So either he was doing it strategically and lying, or he had realized that Rand herself had been full of poop, but either way his switching of definitions should be addressed and questioned. 

Some people might argue that self interest is no longer self interest when it becomes self harm.  But most of the people that took the money in the sub prime mortgage still have it, it never found it’s way back into the economy, and it was Alan Greenspan’s job to prevent stuff like that from happening.  So he failed at his position and thereby falsified her philosophy on a grand scale.  He either intentionally didn’t do his job or he accidentally failed to do his job, but either way it falsifies her conception of the meritocracy of capitalism in which there is no theft and every exchange is perfectly equitable.  There is no way around it, either the market falsified her or Greenspan did, and they don’t get to pass blame around in order to conceal the fact that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is and was wrong. 

RELATED ARTICLES

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-teitelman/alan-greenspan-discovers_b_4172004.html
• http://leftsolutions.wordpress.com/ayn-rand-sociopathic-politics/

Expressions of contempt

 

I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models.  Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded.  People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win.  So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns.  When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.

The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples.  What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt.  Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.

So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them.  So what does this mean for the near future?  Society is about to get a divorce?  No, much much worse.  The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust.  And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science.  And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet.  If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly.  I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.

Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric.  What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist.  He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science.  What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion.  He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good.  And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields.  What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.

This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t.  Socrates was accused of being an atheist.  So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful?  Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government.  There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is.  Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego.  He wants to be worshiped.  He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.

When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.

“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels[1] to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail.  Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent.  You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights.  They are amoral systems.  Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new.  What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.

Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists.  It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it.  Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right?  If you survive or succeed you are the fittest.  Evolution works!

But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.

 RELATED LINKS

• http://paulkiser.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/relationships-and-thin-slicing-why-the-other-person-knows-what-youre-really-thinking/
• http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/girard.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-slicing

MERMAIDS DON’T REAL!

So, a couple of days ago my room mate told me that I have to watch this show, Mermaids on Animal Planet.  I watched a portion of it and as always I deconstruct the micro expressions, body language, and tone of voice as well as my linguistic deconstruction.  I have gotten very fast at doing this, it doesn’t require any effort on my part any more, I do it automatically now.  The portion of the show that I watched disturbed me because though it seemed to be a genuine documentary bringing up new evidence the videos were obviously to high quality to be cell phone videos, I doubt the technology on cell phones was that good at the time, and the reactions of the people were to deliberate and not spontaneous, there was no honest emotion.  I resolved to watch the whole show again later, to carefully inspect everybody’s behavior and I found myself even more convinced the whole thing was contrived.  There was one man with a beard that seemed like he honestly believed what he was saying but there were a few tells at times he let his mask slip.  

The only fact that I believed was that the Navy had been causing whales to beach with their sonar.  At first I thought it was a mean spirited hoax on the part of Atheists or something to sucker people into believing it and then show them how stupid they were.  I thought it would be like the big foot hoax, where the police man lied and used his reputation to get other people to believe him.  It made me very depressed about society that people would spend so much time and energy making other people feel stupid by lying and misrepresenting facts.  That doesn’t prove the people are stupid, it proves that people are stupid for trusting you and not realizing that you are a crappy person.  But this is becoming a recurring problem with the investment agencies, stock markets, and banks in this country, lying to everybody and essentially stealing from them.  

There is a disclaimer on the end of the movie saying that it is a pseudo-documentary, but when War of the Worlds first aired they were up front with telling people that it was just a radio show.  So people’s reactions were their own responsibility.  According to the owner of animal planet he wanted people to think that it was a possibility to inspire them or something, I don’t think he accomplished his goal. I think he kind of demoralized people.  

Dr. Paul Robertson, who presented the video “evidence” of mermaids cavorting in cold northern waters, had stated that they deliberately presented the “evidence” in documentary form to make it enhance the credulity of unwary views. He said: “I wanted the story to appeal to a sense of genuine possibility, and incorporating real science and evolutionary theory and real-world scientific examples — such as animals that have made the transition from land to sea, much as we suggest mermaids did — and citing real, albeit controversial theories like the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, grounded it. Using a straight, documentarian approach made the story more persuasive by appealing more to a sense of intellectual possibility as well as emotional possibility.”

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/351217#ixzz2xr9epEpv

 

 

RELATED LINKS

• https://recycledalien.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/even-better-than-the-real-thing/
• http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/mermaids_aren_t_real_animal_planet_s_fake_documentaries_misrepresent_ocean.html
• http://www.snopes.com/photos/supernatural/mermaids.asp
• http://digitaljournal.com/article/351217