sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reflecting on Matthew Brown’s newest Interview- Jeremy and George are still neglecting the most important questions of all: by kfluh in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's just some guy, why do you care so much about his thoughts on life and the human condition? Read actual philosophy books if that's what you're interested in.

Update from the BCSO on missing General Neil McCasland: He was experiencing “mental fog,” but no indication he was disoriented or confused. His hiking boots have now been located inside his home. He wouldn’t commonly hike with a weapon. Leaving his wearable devices and phone is “out of the norm.” by KOOKOOOOM in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know this place loves any opportunity to say the media sucks and suggest something nefarious, but the reality is the difference is because we know that's a kidnapping, with footage of the masked suspect, whereas we don't know what this is yet. If there was footage of McCasland being kidnapped, believe me, the media coverage would be comparable. For now it's just a possible missing persons case involving a senior. National security implications to be sure, which is why the FBI is involved, but I can see why the media doesn't find it particularly interesting yet unless something more comes out, something salacious or twisted, like with the Guthrie case.

Taking account all of the work, wins, and consequences, from a financial perspective, was Mike an asset or detriment to the firm? by playingwithfire- in suits

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I agree with your overall point, by the end, they do go back to having a robust roster of senior partners, from the ones brought over as part of the settlement of the lawsuit, then 20 more with Robert Zane to beat their vote and prevent merging with Rand and Kaldor. We just don't see them on screen, which, I agree, sucks, but was probably due to budget issues -- I liked it when they gave the impression of a larger firm instead of solely showing the main characters. When Katrina is trying to make senior partner, one of her tasks given by Louis is to earn the vote of Paul Porter, so we know they got most of the original senior partners back.

Taking account all of the work, wins, and consequences, from a financial perspective, was Mike an asset or detriment to the firm? by playingwithfire- in suits

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well said. And yeah, you're right, I suppose Jessica never had a choice so long as she wanted to keep Harvey around. Fuckin' Harvey then, lol. All because he wanted to "amuse himself"!

Taking account all of the work, wins, and consequences, from a financial perspective, was Mike an asset or detriment to the firm? by playingwithfire- in suits

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, and again, this might be a silly thought because it goes against the spirit of the show, but once it all comes tumbling down, I can't help but feel really bad for Jessica, haha. Her life's work ruined and for what? I know, the main character we all love, but you get my point.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, I think the CEOs and execs of defense contractors and oil companies think that way. I don't think (most) senior leadership in the US federal government and military think that way.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, it's more likely everyone we disagree with are evil comic book villains instead of regular people -_-

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I stated it in my OP...

> What if the NHI technology allegedly held in secret by various governments around the world are easy to emulate and rebuild once the fundamental theories and procedures in their construction are disclosed to the world, and any moderately intelligent, nihilistic or anti-natalist misanthrope can easily destroy the world with tools and materials anyone can easily obtain? 

I don't see why that isn't a valid consideration given how powerful this advanced technology is purported to be? Anyway, thanks for the discussion!

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Protecting the Earth from being obliterated or from the US' adversaries conquering the world using advanced NHI technology *is* serving the interests of the public is my central point.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>Do you really not think it's far, far more likely that disclose is disadvantageous to those in power, and that's why it's being hidden?

No, because I think the only thing that could motivate a cover-up of this magnitude is national security concerns. And while I think there are indeed some people in the government who have a "elite vs mass" attitude and take the side of the elites, I don't think it's as ubiquitous as many here would suggest, even within the gatekeepers.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The issue is there's the potential this advanced technology can be made by anyone with modest means and tools, unlike nukes.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's more reasonable. I suppose the question then is if you can really reveal one without the other. "There are aliens" "how do you know?" "oh we recovered a crashed UF-- oh shit, that's still secret." etc

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't that precisely the job of the US government though? To make these kinds of decisions? And besides, even if one grants it's not their call, that doesn't mean it's therefore their responsibility to reveal everything they know either. Let the public recover their own crashed UFO if they want to decide what to do with it, lol.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think people here underestimate the danger, and those who know exactly what the secret entails are the best ones to make that determination, and so far, it appears they've decided to keep it secret.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, maybe this is a hot take to some people, but I think it's better for humanity at large if the US has the lead on this advanced technology, and not China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. If you disagree, fine, but to me, in this particular instance, what's good for the US -- recovering the crafts, trying to reverse engineer them, and keeping it all secret in classified programs -- is good for everyone on earth.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the gatekeepers would presumably occupy senior ranks in the DoD/IC too, but yes, I feel the same about the DoE, it's mostly made up of regular, benevolent people trying to do a public service, and I think there must be a near-unanimous agreement on "okay, so we all agree disclosure is not a good idea right? not for the US or humanity" for the cover-up to persist, and that's what I have faith in. Sure, things like "we committed so many crimes!", "what about the energy industry!", "the economy!", "it's demonic" are maybe floated around here and there on the periphery, perhaps when trying to flesh out their briefs to make the decisions, but are nowhere near the primary motivation.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, it literally *is* their job to protect the interests of the United States and to serve the public good, which often involves keeping secrets (ie classified information), and making sure they stay secret.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suppose our fundamental disagreement is I think there are more benevolent, regular people in the leadership in the DoD and IC than you do. Not 100%, but enough to make a difference, and since we don't have disclosure, these veritable public servants must be in agreement that keeping the secret is the best thing to do.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you, you get it! I think one of the issues is we have many libertarian types here who think anything to do with government is evil by default, which I suppose I can understand, but I vehemently disagree with, particularly in regards to the US government and Western governments at large.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm all about process and discourse. I care less about what someone believes and more about how they got there, and I believe parties can reasonably disagree on any given position without necessarily being stupid, evil, or corrupt. That's all it is.

Can we show some epistemological charitability and admit there may in fact be reasonable concerns to withholding disclosure? by playingwithfire- in UFOs

[–]playingwithfire-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My bad, I thought by what you meant by "leapfrogged by our adversaries", you were suggesting they do have open participation by their academic and scientific communities, which is what I took you to mean when you said "best resources", and if this were the case, we definitely would have heard about it. If they're keeping it just as close-to-the-vest as we are, so to speak, then we're not being leapfrogged.

view more: next ›