I only believe in "conspiracy theories" that are evidently true.
.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
Also, if it's true isn't no longer a conspiracy theory. This speaks to the point we are all making that government agencies lie and cover stuff up so it's not always easy to determine what's true and what's not in real time. Often the suspected truth doesn't come out until years later.
But I have no idea what they gain by staging civilian murders like Sandy Hook or Aurora Colorado. All that did was get people wanting gun control which the military industrial complex is totally against.
Untrue. Those events were great news for the NRA and gun nuts, who used them to argue against gun control.
And sales of the Bushmaster rifle that Lanza used at Sandy Hook went through the roof. Gun nuts love weapons that have been proven in the field.
For the gun industry dead kids are a big ka-ching moment.
I see video of one of the parents of a deceased child literally laughing seconds before the TV cameras are rolling on him and then almost on cue he gets distraught and cries when the cameras role and I think...WTF that seems weird as shit. Then I read about how the government has "actors" that they use in cases like these and I think "well that did seem like an actor and our government has done sleazier shit than that" and a sliver of doubt creeps in. Then human nature takes over and you go looking for other things that don't add up.
What the fucking fuck did I just read?
I know family members of one of the kids who died that day. Not the parents, but very close to them.
I don't know what the provenance of this bullshit video is or what the context is, but I nearly threw up in my fucking mouth reading it.
There weren't any motherfucking actors. There were a score of dead kids and hundreds of devastated family members who continue to be derided by right-wing NRA jerkoffs to this day.
You really want to lend a voice to those people, Rich?
The fact that I posted something that offended YOU is both ironic and somewhat satisfying.
There is indeed a video of a father who lost his daughter in this tragedy, in what appears to be a very upbeat and happy mood and when they tell him the camera is rolling he completely changes his emotions as if on cue and becomes distraught and cries.
People deal with grief in different ways....I don't know how I would act if it were my child.....but for me it is easy to see where something like this could strike someone as odd and lead them to draw conclusions, factual or not.
In 2014 where a photo(shop) can lead people to believe all kinds of fictitious things, a video like the one below is going to influence people.
Do I believe it.....no.
Can I understand why people are distrustful of our government and look for examples of it at every turn...hell yes.
Out of all the interviews and public statements made by parents, relatives, friends, and classmates of Sandy Hook victims, the video plucks two brief snippets of Robbie Parker (father of slain 6-year-old Emilie Parker) and Lynn McDonnell (mother of slain 7-year-old Grace McDonnell) smiling and laughing in conjunction with television appearances in which they spoke about their children, offering this as evidence that a hoax is being perpetrated by people who are merely pretending to be grieving parents. But parents who have lost children don't all walk around afterwards utterly glum and disconsolate, never allowing themselves to exhibit any emotion other than sadness. Either of them might have been laughing and smiling during or immediately prior to talking about their children for any number of reasons: because they were reacting to something funny, because they were expressing nervous anxiety about facing a national television audience, or because they were recalling fond memories of their deceased children.
Indeed, the audio from the portion of Lynn McDonnell's interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper which was used in this conspiracy video is conveniently muted so that viewers can't see for themselves exactly why she was smiling ÔÇö because she was remembering what a terrific, happy child her daughter was, and how much she loved her:
COOPER: What do you want people to know about Grace?
LYNN MCDONNELL: Well, Grace had such a great spirit. She was a kind and gentle soul. And she was just the light and love of our family. She was just truly a special, special little girl that we loved, and she loved her brother so much. And she loved her school, Sandy Hook.
In fact, this week, I was telling somebody she had a stomach ache one day, and I said to her, "Why don't you stay home with Mom?"
And she said, "No way, I have too much fun there, and I don't want to miss anything." She would skip to get on the bus. It wasn't even ÔÇö you know, every morning, it was the backpack was packed the night before and ready to get on the bus in the morning and head off to school. We would blow kisses every morning to each other.
And I remember that morning putting her on the bus. She had a habit of blowing kisses, but then she'd give me a big little liver lips like this. But then she ÔÇö I knew she was so happy to go off and get there.
So it ÔÇö I'd like to say that she was at a place that she loved, and so we take comfort in that, that we know she was in a place that she really loved.
Occam has a razor and it slices up a lot of bullshit. Does the supposedly omniscient and wealthy US government really need elaborate "false flags" to obtain the public approval green light to get whatever it wants to get accomplished on foreign soil? It is really that mind boggling that anyone drunk on ideals and who owns a weapon would somehow successfully kill a high ranking American politician such as (*gasp*) John F Kennedy?
"This doesn't happen in MY AMERICA, does it?!? I vote once every four or eight years and that two-headed political beast just keeps on winning!"
This thread reminded me of one of my favorite comedy records
Harvey I must have misread when you said that you had no evidence that Boston and sandy hook were staged.
So let's take a look at the evidence. I'm a rational person, if there is solid evidence that it was staged then I will change my mind.
I mean real evidence of course. Not anecdotal, no appeal to motive, no appeals to coincidence, no "I'm just asking questions", or any other fallacies. Just good old fashioned evidence. Like a document or recording or anything that cannot be explained by anything other than conspiracy.
Of you are evidence based then provide the evidence. Otherwise concede that this belief is not evidence based and therefore irrational. I think that's fair and not Just being a dick.
In the mind of a hard core conspiracy person things just don't happen. Everything is part of some grand Illuminati scheme. You just don't get it! Why wouldn't the government kill a bunch of kids. It makes total sense if you just think about it. (JK)
Or maybe it was a crazy person who went on a killing spree. Was the KKK guy that just killed three people in Kansas City a MLK Ultra operative? Most likely he was just a hateful moron. The 3 people he killed weren't even Jewish further proving how stupid the killer is.
I firmly believe the government lies and covers things up and even starts war for the betterment of the military industrial complex. This really isn't a secret in fact it's pretty well documented. But I have no idea what they gain by staging civilian murders like Sandy Hook or Aurora Colorado. All that did was get people wanting gun control which the military industrial complex is totally against.
Actually gun sales skyrocketed after Sandy Hook and the NRA is more entrenched than ever in anticipation of gun regulations (which for the most part never came). I think any ideas that it was staged is totally bonkers, though.
I know, they got every body fired up that Obama was coming for their guns so they bought more. Just shows how gullible the gun nuts are. It's sad peoples reaction was to stock pile weapons instead of maybe reflecting we have enough.
I only believe in "conspiracy theories" that are evidently true.
.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
Also, if it's true isn't no longer a conspiracy theory. This speaks to the point we are all making that government agencies lie and cover stuff up so it's not always easy to determine what's true and what's not in real time. Often the suspected truth doesn't come out until years later.
Yea,it's info wars but it's pretty much accurate as far as I know.
It lists the Manhattan Project as a "conspiracy."
It's a list drawn up by an idiot to dazzle idiots.
LOL @ the Illuminati.
The point is that there was a secret government program to develop a WMD that was being hidden from public knowledge. Now it's common knowledge and a known event but at the time if you reported it you'd be on the fridges and the government would have denied it and had you locked up. Most of the thing on the list are of this nature.
There are people today unaware of mkultra and would think you were a conspiracy nut if you just tried to explain it to them.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
twoply said:
DocMcCoy said:
Of course there are instances of vested interests controlling content, suppressing stories, etc. But equally there are plenty of instances where things are pretty much exactly what they appear to be. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I think there's a difference between instances of bias and patterns of bias. Once the latter have been established, it's not unreasonable to begin, conversationally at least, painting with a broad brush.
Yeah, that's a fair point.
I was thinking more of how people's unfamiliarity with the way news-gathering organisations have to operate in war zones or similar regions can often get conflated into something more sinister. When you hear people demanding to know why this or that angle or story isn't being covered by "MSM", it's quite often followed by assertions that the story's being suppressed because it suits certain corporate interests. Rarely do the people banging that particular drum stop long enough to consider that maybe it hasn't been picked up because certain key aspects of it, such as the source itself, may not be verifiable and that maybe NGOs just want to hold off on sending a bullshit story flying around the world.
Just the other day, there was a story circulating widely about how Ukranian Jews were to be made to register their religion/ethnicity by pro-Russian militia, ugly echoes of the Nazi era and all. This story's now been officially denied, but not before it was picked up by a number of reputable outlets in the West and elsewhere.
On one hand, this is a lesson in the wisdom of maintaining a healthy degree of scepticism where these kinds of stories are concerned, as well as a reminder that the use of black propaganda is alive and well - as anyone who's ever watched or clicked on a link from RT.com (or "the other Vlad TV", as I like to call it) can tell you. The usual one-size-fits-all response to such things - "you can't trust any of them", "they're all serving the same master - ain't really gonna do it.
I'm not gonna speak on the weird "conspiracy theories" (pretty sure we landed on the moon!), but I'm still really unsure how anyone can think 2001 went down as the reports say it did. :zip:
I see video of one of the parents of a deceased child literally laughing seconds before the TV cameras are rolling on him and then almost on cue he gets distraught and cries when the cameras role and I think...WTF that seems weird as shit. Then I read about how the government has "actors" that they use in cases like these and I think "well that did seem like an actor and our government has done sleazier shit than that" and a sliver of doubt creeps in. Then human nature takes over and you go looking for other things that don't add up.
What the fucking fuck did I just read?
I know family members of one of the kids who died that day. Not the parents, but very close to them.
I don't know what the provenance of this bullshit video is or what the context is, but I nearly threw up in my fucking mouth reading it.
There weren't any motherfucking actors. There were a score of dead kids and hundreds of devastated family members who continue to be derided by right-wing NRA jerkoffs to this day.
You really want to lend a voice to those people, Rich?
The fact that I posted something that offended YOU is both ironic and somewhat satisfying.
There is indeed a video of a father who lost his daughter in this tragedy, in what appears to be a very upbeat and happy mood and when they tell him the camera is rolling he completely changes his emotions as if on cue and becomes distraught and cries.
People deal with grief in different ways....I don't know how I would act if it were my child.....but for me it is easy to see where something like this could strike someone as odd and lead them to draw conclusions, factual or not.
In 2014 where a photo(shop) can lead people to believe all kinds of fictitious things, a video like the one below is going to influence people.
Do I believe it.....no.
Can I understand why people are distrustful of our government and look for examples of it at every turn...hell yes.
Wow - that brief little glimpse makes you think the guy was "upbeat and happy"?
For real? You're not just playing devil's advocate here?
Congrats, you've just posted something here that beats anything LazyWolf has posted for sheer stupidity.
I only believe in "conspiracy theories" that are evidently true.
.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
Also, if it's true isn't no longer a conspiracy theory. This speaks to the point we are all making that government agencies lie and cover stuff up so it's not always easy to determine what's true and what's not in real time. Often the suspected truth doesn't come out until years later.
Yea,it's info wars but it's pretty much accurate as far as I know.
It lists the Manhattan Project as a "conspiracy."
It's a list drawn up by an idiot to dazzle idiots.
LOL @ the Illuminati.
The point is that there was a secret government program to develop a WMD that was being hidden from public knowledge. Now it's common knowledge and a known event but at the time if you reported it you'd be on the fridges and the government would have denied it and had you locked up. Most of the thing on the list are of this nature.
There are people today unaware of mkultra and would think you were a conspiracy nut if you just tried to explain it to them.
scientists, geneticist, have long been splicing genes from one species to another.
Including phosphorescent jellyfish genes into mice.
If they have done it to pigs I'm not surprised.
scientists, geneticist, have long been splicing genes from one species to another.
Including phosphorescent jellyfish genes into mice.
If they have done it to pigs I'm not surprised.
This is also a conspiracy theory. The few reports that claimed that GMO foods were somehow harmful were completely discredited, their results could never be reproduced, and the most famous one that gets cited was eventually retracted. I've read plenty of anti-science fear mongering and Argumentum Ad Monsantium, but just like any good conspiracy theory, it is all fear mongering with no evidence to back it up.
I'm serious. Whatever study you are about to cite, google it and see what real science has to say. See if it has been debunked or not. Gene splicing happens all the time in nature.
A claim that 'GMO food are dangerous' needs to be backed by evidence. That's the nature of science. That's how science works. If these claims can't be backed by evidence then they are irrational. Show me a double-blind study that has been duplicated in a labratory by multiple independent researchers and I will be happy to change my mind. But fear mongering and "OMG LOOK AT THESE RATS!" pictures are not evidence. Telling about how evil Monsanto is, is not evidence. Appeals to naturalism are not science.
Again, I'm not being a dick here. The methods of observation, experiment, criticism, skepticism, and repeatability are very very very good methods of figuring out how nature works. If you can name another method that has had the same results as the scientific method, then great.
Using a single one-off study with statistically significant results that show a correlation between GMO corn and rats doesn't mean that GMOs are dangerous- it means that further tests need to be done. But guess what happened when further tests were done? The results couldn't be duplicated.
I was skeptical of GMO foods too, so I did what works best for me. I turned to the experts. I'm no scientist, so I look to the consensus to see that the people that actually know what they are talking about have to say about it. What do they say about these scary rat pictures and these scary studies that have been published? The overwhelming consensus among people who actually know about this stuff is that it is nonsense. And trust me- any scientist that could PROVE that GMO foods were harmful would be collecting their nobel prize right now.
Hybridization happens all the time, but these are not interchangeable terms.
Genes from different species are never 'spliced' in nature as they are frequently done in the lab.
The jury is still out on GMOs and many of the studies debunking the harm have been funded by the companies that sell the technology. There is still compelling evidence regarding the effects of GMO pollen on Bees and Butterflies, for example.
First, gene splicing never happens in nature. Genes are traded with in species and genes mutate.
They never, ever, splice.
So to start with this tells me that you don't understand the science and your conclusion are not science based.
Second, you are debunking things I never even suggested.
Third, to hear how GMO is described in the popular press (the true source for your info?) you would think that a single gene from one specie is isolated and spliced into another. This is not what happens.
The elementary school genetics, that is presented in the popular press suggests that a few genes determine everything and a whole lot of junk genes do nothing.
This has been debunked.
There are many genes that turn on and off over the life of an organism.
When geneticists splice genes, they splice the target gene (ie phosphorescence) along with other (often unidentified) genes.
Case in point, round up ready corn produces unnaturally stiff corn stalks. No ayo.
This is poorly reported, because monsanto controls all the info, but if you look you will find it is true.
But so what, right? No problem there, doesn't make the corn dangerous.
Except to thresher tires. The stalks can puncture the tires.
But so what, right? No problem there, it's just a tire.
Except a thresher tire cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Unintended consequence that was not identified until it was applied in the field.
Fourth, Monsanto had an experimental GMO wheat that was not approved by the FDA.
Bet you didn't know that sometimes they try to put something on the market that gets rejected by the FDA.
No problem there, it only had a few experimental tests many years ago and then was withdrawn, right?
Except last year it was found in a wheat field Eastern Oregon.
Which meant that no wheat from Oregon could be exported to Asia, where almost 100% of Oregon wheat goes.
The farmers had to take a loss and sell the wheat to a glutted domestic market.
Fifth, Monsanto is evil.
If you think they are not show me the proof.
Comments
It lists the Manhattan Project as a "conspiracy."
It's a list drawn up by an idiot to dazzle idiots.
LOL @ the Illuminati.
Untrue. Those events were great news for the NRA and gun nuts, who used them to argue against gun control.
And sales of the Bushmaster rifle that Lanza used at Sandy Hook went through the roof. Gun nuts love weapons that have been proven in the field.
For the gun industry dead kids are a big ka-ching moment.
The fact that I posted something that offended YOU is both ironic and somewhat satisfying.
There is indeed a video of a father who lost his daughter in this tragedy, in what appears to be a very upbeat and happy mood and when they tell him the camera is rolling he completely changes his emotions as if on cue and becomes distraught and cries.
People deal with grief in different ways....I don't know how I would act if it were my child.....but for me it is easy to see where something like this could strike someone as odd and lead them to draw conclusions, factual or not.
In 2014 where a photo(shop) can lead people to believe all kinds of fictitious things, a video like the one below is going to influence people.
Do I believe it.....no.
Can I understand why people are distrustful of our government and look for examples of it at every turn...hell yes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
"This doesn't happen in MY AMERICA, does it?!? I vote once every four or eight years and that two-headed political beast just keeps on winning!"
This thread reminded me of one of my favorite comedy records
I know, they got every body fired up that Obama was coming for their guns so they bought more. Just shows how gullible the gun nuts are. It's sad peoples reaction was to stock pile weapons instead of maybe reflecting we have enough.
The point is that there was a secret government program to develop a WMD that was being hidden from public knowledge. Now it's common knowledge and a known event but at the time if you reported it you'd be on the fridges and the government would have denied it and had you locked up. Most of the thing on the list are of this nature.
There are people today unaware of mkultra and would think you were a conspiracy nut if you just tried to explain it to them.
Yeah, that's a fair point.
I was thinking more of how people's unfamiliarity with the way news-gathering organisations have to operate in war zones or similar regions can often get conflated into something more sinister. When you hear people demanding to know why this or that angle or story isn't being covered by "MSM", it's quite often followed by assertions that the story's being suppressed because it suits certain corporate interests. Rarely do the people banging that particular drum stop long enough to consider that maybe it hasn't been picked up because certain key aspects of it, such as the source itself, may not be verifiable and that maybe NGOs just want to hold off on sending a bullshit story flying around the world.
Just the other day, there was a story circulating widely about how Ukranian Jews were to be made to register their religion/ethnicity by pro-Russian militia, ugly echoes of the Nazi era and all. This story's now been officially denied, but not before it was picked up by a number of reputable outlets in the West and elsewhere.
On one hand, this is a lesson in the wisdom of maintaining a healthy degree of scepticism where these kinds of stories are concerned, as well as a reminder that the use of black propaganda is alive and well - as anyone who's ever watched or clicked on a link from RT.com (or "the other Vlad TV", as I like to call it) can tell you. The usual one-size-fits-all response to such things - "you can't trust any of them", "they're all serving the same master - ain't really gonna do it.
Yes, because I'm here to be cross-examined by the wimp brigade.
Is it just cognitive dissonance?
Who believe this?
Such a tough guy.
So tough, he dodges questions.
Hey, did you find that guy who fired rockets at the Texas water treatment plant, yet?
You were so sure that happened.
Wow - that brief little glimpse makes you think the guy was "upbeat and happy"?
For real? You're not just playing devil's advocate here?
Congrats, you've just posted something here that beats anything LazyWolf has posted for sheer stupidity.
Wear that crown proudly.
I guess D-Day was also a conspiracy, then.
Sheesh.
Including phosphorescent jellyfish genes into mice.
If they have done it to pigs I'm not surprised.
Now would be a good time to stop gene splicing.
He's moved on. Now he's sure it was lightning bolts from Obama's weather machine.
It's a false flag operation designed to help them take away our squirt guns.
And just like that, he takes back the crown.
The natural state of an apple isn't "pie" but I still support it.
Right? I mean, making mice glow in the dark? Pretty sweet. Keeps things interesting, you know? Sounds more like gene spicing to me, AMIRITE?
None of them have anything to do with pie.
You also believe the utterly bogus "IRS scandal" is genuine.
What's the difference between you and Louie Gohmert, other than hair?
This is also a conspiracy theory. The few reports that claimed that GMO foods were somehow harmful were completely discredited, their results could never be reproduced, and the most famous one that gets cited was eventually retracted. I've read plenty of anti-science fear mongering and Argumentum Ad Monsantium, but just like any good conspiracy theory, it is all fear mongering with no evidence to back it up.
I'm serious. Whatever study you are about to cite, google it and see what real science has to say. See if it has been debunked or not. Gene splicing happens all the time in nature.
A claim that 'GMO food are dangerous' needs to be backed by evidence. That's the nature of science. That's how science works. If these claims can't be backed by evidence then they are irrational. Show me a double-blind study that has been duplicated in a labratory by multiple independent researchers and I will be happy to change my mind. But fear mongering and "OMG LOOK AT THESE RATS!" pictures are not evidence. Telling about how evil Monsanto is, is not evidence. Appeals to naturalism are not science.
Again, I'm not being a dick here. The methods of observation, experiment, criticism, skepticism, and repeatability are very very very good methods of figuring out how nature works. If you can name another method that has had the same results as the scientific method, then great.
Using a single one-off study with statistically significant results that show a correlation between GMO corn and rats doesn't mean that GMOs are dangerous- it means that further tests need to be done. But guess what happened when further tests were done? The results couldn't be duplicated.
I was skeptical of GMO foods too, so I did what works best for me. I turned to the experts. I'm no scientist, so I look to the consensus to see that the people that actually know what they are talking about have to say about it. What do they say about these scary rat pictures and these scary studies that have been published? The overwhelming consensus among people who actually know about this stuff is that it is nonsense. And trust me- any scientist that could PROVE that GMO foods were harmful would be collecting their nobel prize right now.
I am 100% certain that politically motivated IRS employees acted improperly out of their Cinncinati office and possibly elsewhere.
The fact that the IRS has publically stated that it has "destroyed any donor lists that were improperly obtained" is enough proof of that for me.
Actually, it never happens in nature.
Hybridization happens all the time, but these are not interchangeable terms.
Genes from different species are never 'spliced' in nature as they are frequently done in the lab.
The jury is still out on GMOs and many of the studies debunking the harm have been funded by the companies that sell the technology. There is still compelling evidence regarding the effects of GMO pollen on Bees and Butterflies, for example.
First, gene splicing never happens in nature. Genes are traded with in species and genes mutate.
They never, ever, splice.
So to start with this tells me that you don't understand the science and your conclusion are not science based.
Second, you are debunking things I never even suggested.
Third, to hear how GMO is described in the popular press (the true source for your info?) you would think that a single gene from one specie is isolated and spliced into another. This is not what happens.
The elementary school genetics, that is presented in the popular press suggests that a few genes determine everything and a whole lot of junk genes do nothing.
This has been debunked.
There are many genes that turn on and off over the life of an organism.
When geneticists splice genes, they splice the target gene (ie phosphorescence) along with other (often unidentified) genes.
Case in point, round up ready corn produces unnaturally stiff corn stalks. No ayo.
This is poorly reported, because monsanto controls all the info, but if you look you will find it is true.
But so what, right? No problem there, doesn't make the corn dangerous.
Except to thresher tires. The stalks can puncture the tires.
But so what, right? No problem there, it's just a tire.
Except a thresher tire cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Unintended consequence that was not identified until it was applied in the field.
Fourth, Monsanto had an experimental GMO wheat that was not approved by the FDA.
Bet you didn't know that sometimes they try to put something on the market that gets rejected by the FDA.
No problem there, it only had a few experimental tests many years ago and then was withdrawn, right?
Except last year it was found in a wheat field Eastern Oregon.
Which meant that no wheat from Oregon could be exported to Asia, where almost 100% of Oregon wheat goes.
The farmers had to take a loss and sell the wheat to a glutted domestic market.
Fifth, Monsanto is evil.
If you think they are not show me the proof.