Rise of the conspiracy theorists?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nukehasslefan said:
It depends on what you're happy with.
In your normal everyday life nothing changes for you whether you think the earth is a globe or flat or whether we're really just tiny organisms in a petri dish in a lab, because whatever you think that cannot be verified is essentially nothing more than everyday musing about anything, whether it's a fear of a roaming tyrannosaurus or the potential dream of a flying unicorn.

Basically you simply go along with what you can think and what is shown to you are your reality, whether that's in a text book or by pictures or by video.
Nothing changes for you.

Now here's the but what if scenario.

What if you were paying for something every week for most of your life only to find it was all a scam?
Would that affect you or would you accept you've been duped and the money's gone and just carry on trusting anything and everything around you as told to you and sold to you?

Of course you can say, " so what's this globe cost me?"

It depends on where the start and end of the potential duping comes into it all. If one lie can be told, so can two and so can 100 and so on and so on.
Click to expand...

So there would be no point in pretending were on a globe then aye?
 


BigPeter said:
So there would be no point in pretending were on a globe then aye?
Click to expand...
That depends on what the motives are.
I can come up with many possibilities and none which may be correct in their entirety, if at all.

Let's look at this in a simple way from the very basic of a "hmmmmm" questioning type.
We're basically sort of bullied into religious ways, do you agree?
Tell someone you're an atheist or simply do not follow any meanings for any words relating to a god and you are definitely looked at in peculiar ways and in some ways you're treated like an outcast.

Stuff like, you can't get married in this church unless you're baptised and you can't go to this school because it's a certain religion and you're not it.

And so on.
The thing is, someone who believes on side of that believe they are correct because they were told it was the correct religion. Every other person of religion will argue for their set up.
The atheist can stand on a pedestal and proclaim that he is mostly right because he hasn't seen any god and nobody can prove a god exists.
Someone can run up to him and show him a video of Jesus of Nazareth...etc....etc....or show him a picture of Jesus on a cross and shout " what more proof do you need". See what I'm getting at?

We're all reliant on stories of old and stories anew.

So basically what is real science and how so called science is more of a sort of religion?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
That depends on what the motives are.
I can come up with many possibilities and none which may be correct in their entirety, if at all.

Let's look at this in a simple way from the very basic of a "hmmmmm" questioning type.
We're basically sort of bullied into religious ways, do you agree?
Tell someone you're an atheist or simply do not follow any meanings for any words relating to a god and you are definitely looked at in peculiar ways and in some ways you're treated like an outcast.

Stuff like, you can't get married in this church unless you're baptised and you can't go to this school because it's a certain religion and you're not it.

And so on.
The thing is, someone who believes on side of that believe they are correct because they were told it was the correct religion. Every other person of religion will argue for their set up.
The atheist can stand on a pedestal and proclaim that he is mostly right because he hasn't seen any god and nobody can prove a god exists.
Someone can run up to him and show him a video of Jesus of Nazareth...etc....etc....or show him a picture of Jesus on a cross and shout " what more proof do you need". See what I'm getting at?

We're all reliant on stories of old and stories anew.

So basically what is real science and how so called science is more of a sort of religion?
Click to expand...

What a load of waffle man 😂

You know there would be no point.
 
Yes I see a lot of these vaccination conspiracies pushed by the theorists, David Icke is a big believer in this.
 
GingerNick said:
be interesting to see if you could sue him if your kid dies because you believed what he told you
Click to expand...
Hopefully not. He is a campaigner with no medical training. If someone decides to trust someone with no expertise, training, education or even evidence to back up their claims, over lots of expert medical advice, then it is really their own fault. It sounds harsh, but it comes down to who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool that follows him.

These days suing someone seems to be a cop out for not taking responsibility for your own actions (in some cases).

One thing that I am completely behind conspiracy theory nuts is that everyone should question everything. Look at everything objectively and either study for yourself, or weight up evidence. Who is saying what, how well qualified are they to claim what they are saying, how much evidence is there for a thing and how much against, then decide. E.g. when the evidence against something globally accepted is some hillbilly in an American trailer park with a webcam and access to YouTube, I kind of have a gut instinct that I'd trust the thousands of qualified astrophysicists/surgeons/engineers/nuclear scientists/etc. It is the whole, "I'm not sure about a small part of that, so I'm going to invent something completely different from nowhere" part of the loons that I don't think I'll ever understand.
 
DaveH said:
One thing that I am completely behind conspiracy theory nuts is that everyone should question everything. Look at everything objectively and either study for yourself, or weight up evidence.
Click to expand...
It really bothers me when a CT will present evidence that I just can't debunk but at the end of the day even if they are right (which they seem to be sometimes on some news stories).. so what! nothing I can do about it, I could tell a few people but that wont make any difference, who could I report it to officially? There's nothing so the whole CT thing is just going to go round and round and round probably until it becomes illegal to question anything or the CT community is completely discredited which they already seem to be by most people.
Hypothetically speaking if I could give you concrete undeniable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job as they say (I don't have such evidence as this is hypothetical) what would you do with it? Who would you tell? Would it change anything?
 
niceonemarra said:
It really bothers me when a CT will present evidence that I just can't debunk but at the end of the day even if they are right (which they seem to be sometimes on some news stories).. so what! nothing I can do about it, I could tell a few people but that wont make any difference, who could I report it to officially? There's nothing so the whole CT thing is just going to go round and round and round probably until it becomes illegal to question anything or the CT community is completely discredited which they already seem to be by most people.
Hypothetically speaking if I could give you concrete undeniable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job as they say (I don't have such evidence as this is hypothetical) what would you do with it? Who would you tell? Would it change anything?
Click to expand...
You would have to hope that if it was complete undeniable evidence then eventually momentum would build, people would pick up on it, perhaps some professional studies by Universities would happen etc.

At the moment most theories seem to be based around what is observed not meeting personal expectations of people without any qualified knowledge in said area. For example, a common one is "we can't be on a spinning globe as I would feel it, you can feel it spinning on a waltzer so we should all be clinging to the earth going wooooaaahhh". That is not really laying down evidence to the masses. They might be right, but a bit more is needed.

Lets face it, with 9/11, nobody really knows how a steel and concrete sky scraper should behave when you crash a jet fully loaded with fuel into it. It is not something the designers planned for. It was surprising the way they fell like a controlled explosion. "Hey that don't look right to me", "what experience do you have demolishing buildings", "none", is never going to wash. That does not mean it was a real attack it does not mean it was not, just the information source of the claim was not credible. If there was enough that say a big engineering company or a University - perhaps from a country who would love to discredit the USA in the eyes of the world, like China, could show that it really could not have happened then that would start to build something and serious questions would be asked within the US.

I don't buy into the idea that all governments, scientists, engineers etc are all keeping quiet on important things in a global conspiracy. The world is to competitive. The moment there is a political or commercial advantage to show the world the lies, it would be done. Like with a lot of the space stuff. The US are seen as pretty much owning space. If Russia, China, India or North Korea had evidence the moon landings were faked or even a lack of tracking information to say no craft was observed landing for each of the missions, they surely would have done so by now. There is more in it for them to uncover the lie than to keep it.
 
DaveH said:
Hopefully not. He is a campaigner with no medical training. If someone decides to trust someone with no expertise, training, education or even evidence to back up their claims, over lots of expert medical advice, then it is really their own fault. It sounds harsh, but it comes down to who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool that follows him.

These days suing someone seems to be a cop out for not taking responsibility for your own actions (in some cases).

One thing that I am completely behind conspiracy theory nuts is that everyone should question everything. Look at everything objectively and either study for yourself, or weight up evidence. Who is saying what, how well qualified are they to claim what they are saying, how much evidence is there for a thing and how much against, then decide. E.g. when the evidence against something globally accepted is some hillbilly in an American trailer park with a webcam and access to YouTube, I kind of have a gut instinct that I'd trust the thousands of qualified astrophysicists/surgeons/engineers/nuclear scientists/etc. It is the whole, "I'm not sure about a small part of that, so I'm going to invent something completely different from nowhere" part of the loons that I don't think I'll ever understand.
Click to expand...
What if they had successfully scared away/blocked the parents from taking their kids for vaccinations?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1202974701544517632
 
DaveH said:
You would have to hope that if it was complete undeniable evidence then eventually momentum would build, people would pick up on it, perhaps some professional studies by Universities would happen etc.

At the moment most theories seem to be based around what is observed not meeting personal expectations of people without any qualified knowledge in said area. For example, a common one is "we can't be on a spinning globe as I would feel it, you can feel it spinning on a waltzer so we should all be clinging to the earth going wooooaaahhh". That is not really laying down evidence to the masses. They might be right, but a bit more is needed.

Lets face it, with 9/11, nobody really knows how a steel and concrete sky scraper should behave when you crash a jet fully loaded with fuel into it. It is not something the designers planned for. It was surprising the way they fell like a controlled explosion. "Hey that don't look right to me", "what experience do you have demolishing buildings", "none", is never going to wash. That does not mean it was a real attack it does not mean it was not, just the information source of the claim was not credible. If there was enough that say a big engineering company or a University - perhaps from a country who would love to discredit the USA in the eyes of the world, like China, could show that it really could not have happened then that would start to build something and serious questions would be asked within the US.

I don't buy into the idea that all governments, scientists, engineers etc are all keeping quiet on important things in a global conspiracy. The world is to competitive. The moment there is a political or commercial advantage to show the world the lies, it would be done. Like with a lot of the space stuff. The US are seen as pretty much owning space. If Russia, China, India or North Korea had evidence the moon landings were faked or even a lack of tracking information to say no craft was observed landing for each of the missions, they surely would have done so by now. There is more in it for them to uncover the lie than to keep it.
Click to expand...

It's the third building that fell in the exact same way that has me stumped. The official line is it caught fire and then collapsed like it did. These buildings were made to withstand all sorts, something does just not add up.
 
DaveH said:
You would have to hope that if it was complete undeniable evidence then eventually momentum would build, people would pick up on it, perhaps some professional studies by Universities would happen etc.

At the moment most theories seem to be based around what is observed not meeting personal expectations of people without any qualified knowledge in said area. For example, a common one is "we can't be on a spinning globe as I would feel it, you can feel it spinning on a waltzer so we should all be clinging to the earth going wooooaaahhh". That is not really laying down evidence to the masses. They might be right, but a bit more is needed.

Lets face it, with 9/11, nobody really knows how a steel and concrete sky scraper should behave when you crash a jet fully loaded with fuel into it. It is not something the designers planned for. It was surprising the way they fell like a controlled explosion. "Hey that don't look right to me", "what experience do you have demolishing buildings", "none", is never going to wash. That does not mean it was a real attack it does not mean it was not, just the information source of the claim was not credible. If there was enough that say a big engineering company or a University - perhaps from a country who would love to discredit the USA in the eyes of the world, like China, could show that it really could not have happened then that would start to build something and serious questions would be asked within the US.

I don't buy into the idea that all governments, scientists, engineers etc are all keeping quiet on important things in a global conspiracy. The world is to competitive. The moment there is a political or commercial advantage to show the world the lies, it would be done. Like with a lot of the space stuff. The US are seen as pretty much owning space. If Russia, China, India or North Korea had evidence the moon landings were faked or even a lack of tracking information to say no craft was observed landing for each of the missions, they surely would have done so by now. There is more in it for them to uncover the lie than to keep it.
Click to expand...
Is it ok if I pm you later tonight as I'm at work, I've got a couple of things I'm struggling to debunk. I'm not posting any CT shit on here I just want someone with a sensible brain to debunk a couple of things for me. No probs if not.
 
:lol:
SAFCOldie said:
It's the third building that fell in the exact same way that has me stumped. The official line is it caught fire and then collapsed like it did. These buildings were made to withstand all sorts, something does just not add up.
Click to expand...

One of the twin towers fell into it.
 
niceonemarra said:
Is it ok if I pm you later tonight as I'm at work, I've got a couple of things I'm struggling to debunk. I'm not posting any CT shit on here I just want someone with a sensible brain to debunk a couple of things for me. No probs if not.
Click to expand...
If you like, not sure if I count as a sensible brain - especially on a Friday
AlpineExile said:
What if they had successfully scared away/blocked the parents from taking their kids for vaccinations?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1202974701544517632
Click to expand...
I didn't realise it had gone to those levels. That is just stupid.
 
Three things about conspiracy theorists, from my point of view.

One is that the defining difference, for me, between someone who believes in a conspiracy, and a conspiracy theorist, is that the first person's belief than an event might be a conspiracy does not mean that they believe all similar (and even unrelated events) are part of a conspiracy. So, someone might believe that 9/11 is not explained by the official story. Doesn't make them a conspiracy theorist. But someone who then goes on from there to claim that all, or most, terrorist attacks are false flags using crisis actors as victims etc - they're a conspiracy theorist. Grand narratives explaining everything, which usually go back to the 'shadowy powers are behind it all' which usually, and sadly, when you dig enough goes back to the centuries old 'it's the Jews' trope.

Second thing, is that a conspiracy theorist will construct incredibly detailed critiques of 'the official story', but then either don't provide any account of what they think really happened, or only provide sketchy outline detail...which by chance, isn't detailed enough to stand up to the same level of critique. To convince me, for example, that 9/11 is Not As It Seems then you need to put forward a compelling, evidenced theory of who did it, why, and how, that can be tested as hard as you test the official theory. This almost never happens. And if it does, and a major plank of the alternative theory is debunked, there's always a shifting of the goalposts to the next, and the next, and the next....

Thirdly, a conspiracy theorist will mock the sheeple for believing anything the mainstream media tells them, and then promptly and uncritically believe any unsubstantiated shite that some mad bloke bellows on a youtube video. Critical thinking is a really good thing, but you have to apply it all the time, to everything, and not just suspend it because you like something else better.
 
The King of Um said:
Three things about conspiracy theorists, from my point of view.

One is that the defining difference, for me, between someone who believes in a conspiracy, and a conspiracy theorist, is that the first person's belief than an event might be a conspiracy does not mean that they believe all similar (and even unrelated events) are part of a conspiracy. So, someone might believe that 9/11 is not explained by the official story. Doesn't make them a conspiracy theorist. But someone who then goes on from there to claim that all, or most, terrorist attacks are false flags using crisis actors as victims etc - they're a conspiracy theorist. Grand narratives explaining everything, which usually go back to the 'shadowy powers are behind it all' which usually, and sadly, when you dig enough goes back to the centuries old 'it's the Jews' trope.

Second thing, is that a conspiracy theorist will construct incredibly detailed critiques of 'the official story', but then either don't provide any account of what they think really happened, or only provide sketchy outline detail...which by chance, isn't detailed enough to stand up to the same level of critique. To convince me, for example, that 9/11 is Not As It Seems then you need to put forward a compelling, evidenced theory of who did it, why, and how, that can be tested as hard as you test the official theory. This almost never happens. And if it does, and a major plank of the alternative theory is debunked, there's always a shifting of the goalposts to the next, and the next, and the next....

Thirdly, a conspiracy theorist will mock the sheeple for believing anything the mainstream media tells them, and then promptly and uncritically believe any unsubstantiated shite that some mad bloke bellows on a youtube video. Critical thinking is a really good thing, but you have to apply it all the time, to everything, and not just suspend it because you like something else better.
Click to expand...
YouTube is no longer a platform for anyone even suggesting a CT anymore, iirc last quarter over 3 million videos were deleted. Thanks for sharing your views marra.
 
fyl2u said:
More and more people are realising that it's profitable to spin bullshit for morons.

David Icke really set the ball rolling, the damn genius.
Click to expand...

True, although a lot of what he talked about is coming true or provento be correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top