Sugardyne-The Poor Mans Antibiotic

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Defending Yourself Against the “Intellectual Punt”

The intellectual punt is a disinformation technique designed to get individuals to reject certain ideas by associating them with other ideas.

I DO NOT assume that everyone understands football as played in the United States of America, and since I played a little in junior high and high school, I’ll explain the concept of the punt.

The offense, that’s the team with the ball, has four chances (four downs) to make ten yards of forward progress from where they started.  So if they started on the twenty yard line, they have to make it to the thirty yard line in four plays.  If, after the third down, the offense has not made ten yards of forward progress, the team has two options.  If the team thinks they can INTEGRATE and work together, they go for it on the fourth down.  If the team thinks they cannot INTEGRATE and work together, on fourth down the ball is snapped to the punter who drop kicks the ball away.  Had the offence gone for it on fourth down (assuming they started on the twenty yard line) and made it only to the twenty nine yard line, the other team would get the ball and only have to go twenty nine yards to score a touchdown.  So if the offense cannot INTEGRATE and work together, the punt gives them better field position and increases the distance the other team has to move the ball to score.

Rather than give a precise definition of the intellectual punt, I’m going to define by example.  I’m going to give 6 generic statements and 1 specific statement.  When I give the specific statement, some of you will recognize the person I’m quoting.  He’s a bit “iffy” on some things.

This person gives a lot of good data in his books about the ongoing movement to create a world government.  By “movement to create a world government” I’m simply referring to the ongoing movement to get sovereign nations to cede more and more of their control to a central global authority.  There’s no big secret there.  However, I do think it’s bad, because once you have a central global authority and it goes bad as all governments do given enough time, there will be no other force there to keep it in check.

Lets begin.

Statement 1-True statement about the movement for world government.  Easily confirmed at even a small town library.  Easily confirmed using 1st rate, 2nd rate, and even 3rd rate internet sources.  (We’ll cover how to determine what is a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rate internet source another time.  However it is a process of elimination-all sources are considered 3rd rate until proven otherwise.)

Statement 2-True statement about the movement for world government.  This statement might require a medium size town library to confirm.  It can be confirmed using 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rate internet sources but it takes a little more time.

Statement 3-True statement about ongoing conspiracy for world government.  For confirmation, a  large city library might be required.  Confirmation via the internet will be tedious because the 1st rate source will say one thing, the 2nd rate source will say basically the same thing as the 1st rate source-it will just say more, and the 3rd rate source will say something totally different.

Comment: At this point you were hit with the word “conspiracy”.  The term “conspiracy theory” has been turned into a bonafide psychological weapon.  A man or woman could say “The sky reflects blue light and the grass reflects green light”.  Call their statement a “conspiracy theory” and 99 times in 100 they will back off. 

Let’s define our terms.

conspiracy-When two or more individuals work in secret to achieve a given end.

I think that has happened a few times in recorded history.  A number of Roman emperors were assassinated via conspiracy.  It’s how “honest” Abe Lincoln was removed.  It how J.F.K. was removed. (If you actually believe a bullet can turn 180 degrees in flight and move opposite the direction it was fired, you may want to look into a scientific discipline known as “physics”.  )

People tent to associate “conspiracy” with bad things.  As such, it’s worth noting that two or more individuals can work in secret to achieve a good end.

The term “conspiracy theory” is really a term used by weak minds who reject an idea on an a priori basis.  In simple terms, they reject an idea simply because it does not fit in with their way of thinking.  At best, the a priori fallacy is very dangerous.  At worst, it gets you killed.

Let’s continue.

Statement 4-True statement about the ongoing conspiracy for world government that is very complex.  This hits even harder because the statement seems outlandish to someone who is not well versed on this topic.  You will need a big city library and a lot of time spent in that library to confirm this one.  The information you find on the internet will be so convoluted you won’t even be able to make an educated guess at what is a 1st rate, 2nd rate, or 3rd rate internet source.  Also, the various internet sources will contradict one another.

Hang on, it gets worse.

Statement 5-True statement about the ongoing conspiracy for world government.  To confirm this one you will need to go to one of the less than one hundred university libraries in the United States designated as a “research library”.  If you go to such a library, you will have to spend from half a day to 3 days to confirm the statement and you will have to check multiple sources.  If you do an internet search, you really have to know how to work the internet.  For example, if you’re looking for the number “4", you’re not going to find a “4" on any one web site.  You might have to go to one site and find a “2" and to another site to find another “2" to make a “4".

Statement 6-True statement about the ongoing movement/conspiracy for world government.  Notice that “movement/conspiracy” is used together.  This further muddies the water.  You will need a research library.  However, if one cannot “read between the lines” as it were, a research library is not going to help.  Let’s say again, for purposes of example, we are doing an internet search for the number “4".  This time it isn’t going to be as easy as 2 + 2 = 4.  This time you might have to go to four web sites and find a “1" at each site to make a “4".  You might have to go to eight web sites and find a “0.5" at each web site to make a “4".  You might have to go to sixteen web sites and find a “0.25" at each web site to get a “4".

It’s worth noting that most people cannot effectively do what is necessary to confirm statement 6.  I would estimate/guesstimate/extrapolate that only 1 person in 75 can do this. 

Now, it’s time for the punt.

Statement 7-“The British royal family are alien, reptilian, shape shifters.”  At this point some of you know who I’m quoting.  Can you see the punted ball flying away?

So now let’s give a little more formal definition of the “intellectual punt”.

In simple terms, there are true statements that you do not want people to believe.  You then add to the true statements one or more statements of outlandish bullshit.  The idea is to make the bullshit so outlandish that the reader throws everything away, or “intellectually punts” all of the data away because he/she cannot INTEGRATE it all into a cogent whole.

So how do you handle the statement that is designed to induce the intellectual punt?  You handle it just like any other.

“Alien”-There is no fundamental physical law that says other intelligent life cannot exist in this multi verse or in our particular universe.  Given the size of our universe, an estimated 14 billion light years across, it’s essentially a sure thing there is other intelligent life out there.

(I do have a modest proposal.  Perhaps we should confirm intelligent life exists on planet Earth before we look for it elsewhere in the universe.  We as a species keep following these chemarims we call “politicians”.  If there are any reptiles on planet Earth that walk on 2 legs, politicians are the most likely candidates.  They’re certainly cold blooded)

“Reptilian”-There is no fundamental physical or biological law that prohibits there being highly intelligent reptiles.  However, I think it’s a bit of a long shot because reptiles are cold blooded, meaning they cannot internally regulate their body temperature.  This would make an advanced brain very difficult.

“Shape shifter”-This one is a bit more problematic.  While there is no fundamental physical law or biological law that prevents it, it would be very hard.  In a biological of this type, mass would be constant.  However, when shifting to a new shape, surface area would be variable.  As such, temperature regulation would be more difficult than it would be for a biological whose surface area were a constant.

But where is the evidence?  In simple language, it ain’t there.  I do remember an episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine in which the shape shifter on the station, Odo, was made to shift back to his original shape by being hit with what appeared to be a bolt of plasma or electricity.  Is the promulgator of this “alien, reptilian, shape shifter” theory going to hit the Queen Mother with an 800,000 volt stun gun?  I doubt it.


In all seriousness, do some observations yourself.  Notice how “controversial” ideas are mixed in with ideas that are just crazy.  Notice how other people “punt” when this occurs.  Take care not to “punt” yourself.


1 comment:

  1. #Golf-Clap - Just so sad that you have to write it.. #Some'people'..