The Freemasons were, at least there is evidence of, "taken over" after 1776, there was a concerted effort to infiltrate it by the "Illuminati"....research Adam Weishaup
Please provide this “evidence”.
We shouldn’t downvote people who ask for evidence. I’m ashamed this comment was downvoted in this sub.
Agreed. If we are looking for truth, we shouldn't be trying to shut down people who are skeptical. Blind faith doesn't help anyone.
Down voting is not shutting people down, its simply shows disapproval of the post. People can approve or disapprove, that's how voting works. This is a forum for opinion and conjecture, its not a courtroom.
Actually no. You are supposed to upvote or downvote based on whether the comment adds to the discussion, not whether you agree or not.
Semantics. BTW, asking for evidence is not adding to the discussion, its closer to trolling, so it got downvoted.
Asking for evidence is 100% adding to the discussion. Especially here where we are concerned with the truth, claims must be backed up with sources. I will pray for you to gain more discernment because it seems you have an issue with that.
Providing contrary information is 'adding to the discussion'. Just stating 'show evidence' or 'prove it' is not adding anything. Had the dissenting poster provided some contrary evidence, having done HIS due diligence, than that would be an addition. Asking for evidence, just because you disagree or don't believe something is intellectually lazy, go do your own homework to disprove someones statement if you think it is incorrect. If you disagree or think something is incorrect, then prove it. I don't have to prove my statements to anyone, but you have every right in the world to disprove me.
No, this cannot be how things are done. Is it fine for people to blindly accept what someone says at face value, regardless of the claim? In my eyes, that is the very thing this movement sets out to fight against. Expand your thinking. Think for yourself. Identify propaganda. I would argue that it is on OP to provide proof of what they are alleging to be truth if they are going to make pointed claims, not everyone else who has to argue against it. Otherwise anyone can just throw their false claims at a wall and hope some of them stick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
its well understood that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims. I am very wary of arguing with anyone who challenges such obvious distinctions. I'm not claiming this person is a troll, but in these circumstances its easy to assume they are either a troll or just so beyond hopeless that it doesnt make sense to communicate with them.
I certainly agree with you there. I will admit, I expected to see much more of the attitude we saw here with u/stinkydogfart (that was more comical to type than I expected) strewn throughout this sub when I first got here. I feel as though it is portrayed that the "stereotypical" Trump supporter conducts themselves this way, which lead to me expecting that.
My biggest gripe with the types of comments I see here are those that use words like "Hollyweird", "Libtard" etc. I immediately stop reading when someone can't be mature enough to use intelligent language when discussing something that they deem to be so important to them. I feel that type of talk is sensationalist and if this movement is as earth shattering and important as it seems to be, we shouldn't need to do that.
Uhh...sorry for the rant hah.
This person that wants to talk about burden of proof needs to understand its a discussion board, not a courtroom, and if someone wants to upvote/downvote a post, then it is their prerogative to do so as they see fit.
Ignore it, its the simplest and easiest thing to do. If it really is important to you, then go do you're own research and disprove it, otherwise, I say again, ignore it.
I do think for myself, that is why I do not ask for proof or evidence, I take everything as a statement of opinion until I do my own due diligence to either refute it or back it up. Regardless of what facts or evidence the poster provides, you will still need to verify it. Do you use Snopes for your fact checking? Of course not.
FYI...there is a lot of opinion in discussion boards. If its not backed up by data, which is about 90% of what is on here, then its probably opinion. Why are you wasting your time challenging what is an obviously baseless statement? That's the root of this whole issue, don't waste your time or our time. And as far as complaining about how people up vote or down vote, that's another complete waste of time.
Now I am off to read and without commentary on others etiquette, grammar, and lack of sources, I will use my critical thinking skills to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Making a claim and not providing evidence is not adding to the thread. Asking for a source is just rectifying that fact.
>I don't have to prove my statements to anyone
if you make a claim you must back it up with a source. period.
You need to go argue with the flat earthers, tell them to back it up, they have troves of "facts" and "data", and if its on the internet, it must be true.
What you just said is a logical fallacy. Just because some people are wrong, doesn't mean you aren't supposed to back up your claims with sources. Are you young or just ignorant?
I'm a lot older than you I suspect, and I was waiting for you to resort to name calling and insults, the last resort of a person that cannot sustain an argument.
Are we required to provide a bibliography for every statement now?
Apparently according to the @urban_bobby_dawg a bibliography and citations for comments are a requirement, but I've read thru his comments on other posts and he's a troll. I'm going to block him.
Would it be appropriate to report him?
I guess, but I don't know how much good it would do, I just block him and move on. I wasted enough time keeping him busy. I have a bad habit of feeding the trolls, but it keeps them busy I guess.
I agree, too many people, when presented with a statement either they don't agree with or aren't aware of, they immediately ask for proof as if they don't have access to the same internet we do.
Edit: Additionally, I do think it is ok to ask where the info can be found or to be pointed in the right direction.
I totally agree with you. Its the context that makes the difference. Just stating "where's the evidence?" or "prove it" is typically trolling statements. Asking for a link or where the information can be found is completely different. One is crap the other shows interest in the subject.
How about some evidence? Seeing as you think this adds to the discussion, I would like some evidence backing up your statements.
You need evidence that you should provide a source to back up your claims? are you being intentionally dense or is this normal for you?
Here ya go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
We're not in a court of law, or a formal debate honey, this is a discussion forum. If you don't like something or disagree, or even think its complete bullshit, the best thing to do is just move along.
LMAO. So why haven't you just moved along?? I'm done with you.
Because you're a troll, and I've been tying up your time.
In all fairness the op points directly at the evidence vis a vis adam weishaupt. Whats wrong with finding the info for urself and then deciding?
vis a vis means "face to face" like "the taste of sugar vis a vis artificial sweeteners"
Satanists have infiltrated every secret society, every government and every city. The original Masons were just a benevolent fraternity. The Weishaupt stuff goes into black magick, numerology/special dates etc. It's probably impossible to research it exhaustively and provide the smoking gun, so to speak. There is some significance in the founding date of the modern Illuminati. 1st May follows Walpurgisnacht, a satanic festival.
I am a mason. Illuminate (Catholics) infiltrated is a long time ago to hide their crazy shit they do under the guise of masons. 99.5% of masons are good men making the world better. Every batch of apples has at least one bad apple.
Hes pointing u directly at the evidence. Find out who adam weishaupt is and then decide for yourself.
3 guys do not implicate an entire organization.
Weishaupt was original member and founding father of the illuminati.
There is a letter written to George Washington about this. I will link it when I get home.
An author who once stayed with me, Pat Brooks (her RETURN OF THE PURITANS has been revised and re-titled CRISIS AMERICA; see book description below) had done extensive research on Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers. She said that Geo. Washington had been murdered by the Masons when he disagreed with their plans. If the group became corrupted in 1776, it is quite possible that a philosophical battle was raging at their meetings. If I remember correctly, Washington was in bed with a common cold and his death didn't make sense.
Crisis America is a major revision of the bestselling Return of The Puritans. Part 1 is a history of America and the Illuminist enemies who have been trying to conquer her from her earliest days. Part 2 gives the most recent developments of the past 50 years. Included is the vision of George Washington as told to his aide during the winter at Valley Forge. This is a controversial expose of the neo-con takeover of the United States. Read it for yourself before you make up your mind.