TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Conspiracy Theorists
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Oh, here's where it gets good. Unsubstantiated rumor about the nefarious CFR is probably my favorite theory of the bunch.

Also, lol @ governance being for losers in a democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Oh, here's where it gets good. Unsubstantiated rumor about the nefarious CFR is probably my favorite theory of the bunch. Also, lol @ governance being for losers in a democracy.

My mistake.. There is no international policy being discussed at CFR/Bilderberg/TLC meetings. They are just polite pool parties.

And yeah lez..government is the place to people who can't hack it in reality..It's always easier to control others than to compete with them.

Asshats! Go back to the PDD.

k.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt My mistake.. There is no international policy being discussed at CFR/Bilderberg/TLC meetings. They are just polite pool parties.

Discussing policy = ruling the world? Guess I'm more powerful than I thought!

quote:

And yeah lez..government is the place to people who can't hack it in reality..It's always easier to control others than to compete with them.

Where do you get this stuff?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt And yeah lez..government is the place to people who can't hack it in reality..It's always easier to control others than to compete with them.

lol.. that's kinda fucked up but for the most part it's true. It actually IS easier to control people through mandates than it is to put in the work and compete in the marketplace.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt My mistake.. There is no international policy being discussed at CFR/Bilderberg/TLC meetings. They are just polite pool parties.

you sound like a child.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt And yeah lez..government is the place to people who can't hack it in reality..It's always easier to control others than to compete with them.

you should make bumper stickers.

Can't say "planned/decided" can I lez. That would be "unsubstantiated rumor"..but does it really take an astounding leap of logic to believe the most powerful and influential people on the planet are not setting up these meetings to simply relive the glory days of their high school debate club?

Astounding leap of logic is exactly how I would describe it, actually.

Any examples to share?

No friend...That's why CT'ers refer to these secretive groups as "secret".

Your lack of proof is very convincing - overwhelming, even.

tyvm. Just don't lose your skepticism lez..I'm sure it's been mostly bred out of you in your 9 years of political science courses..but hopefully you can retain some once you start work in Washington.

nite.

To be honest, working in Washington is what makes me sure that you're being absurd. Life isn't a television show.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Life isn't a television show.

*Changes Channel*

im neutral when it comes to this kind of shit because we dont know enough about the world to just kick shit to the curb if it doesn't match YOUR(people in general) sense of logic, thats ignorant, fuck ignoramuses

conspiracy theorists AND anti conspiracy theorists try too hard to push their view of reality on to people

it's like religion; there are people who strongly believe it, those who are completely against it, and those who are open minded enough to see it from both perspectives, but is neutral about it in the end

remember fcukers, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

isn't it funny how back in the day humans used to believe the earth was flat, & if you weren't down with this FACT(at the time), you'd probably be beheaded

galileo would have ended up six feet below if he didn't agree with the church(government or church, some shit like that) that the SUN revolved around the earth, even though he strongly believed the EARTH revolved around the sun(although he chose life over his pride & research haha), and here we are today, still revolving around the sun

gonna eat this fucking sausage in a bun with some biere its gonna be creammmmmmmmm

FREETHOUGHT WHAAAAAT.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit anyways im trying to twist your leg here lira

It's all right, it's a welcome twist

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit lol i was being a bit sarcastic. The premise of religion is simply a faith no questions asked as to why no testable predictions just believe and thats it. We don't try to find evidence of noah's arc, the parting of the red sea, or radiometric data verifying 7 days of creation. Its simply faith. To compare this to a conspiracy theorist would not be analogous since, on the contrary, consipracy theorists are creating, analyzing or fabricating evidence towards a theory.

Actually, that isn't so. There have been many attempts to find proofs that the parting of the red sea, for instance, made sense. I heard that, specially in the XIX century, it was common to look for rational explanations for biblical stories - and, it turns out the parting of the Red Sea may have been a ludicrously exaggerated account of something that may have indeed happened thanks to the low tide in the said sea during a certain time of the year that matches the probable day of the event.

I can't be arsed to look it up right now because I need to go to bed. But, if you want, I can look it up for you tomorrow

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit This could be analogous if there was 1 true religion as there is 1 truth regarding a conspiracy theory. For religion, the probability of even 1 of them being correct is very slim. So your comparing myth to myth.

I agree with you there.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit To be analagous, the two comparables must have the same premise. This myth is correct while that myth is incorrect. vs The moon landing was real while the conspiracy theorist believe its fake. To be analagous there should be at least 1 correct response 1 and 1 1 and 0 mathematically this does not process.

Wait, there's something wrong with the way you numbered these examples. In the first example, the former is correct and the latter is false. The same applies to the second example. Without any concrete facts, these sentences are indeed similar.



(Mind you, I do believe the moon landing was real, but it seems your argument is still incomplete )

quote:

Originally posted by hundred im neutral when it comes to this kind of shit because we dont know enough about the world to just kick shit to the curb if it doesn't match YOUR(people in general) sense of logic, thats ignorant, fuck ignoramuses conspiracy theorists AND anti conspiracy theorists try too hard to push their view of reality on to people it's like religion; there are people who strongly believe it, those who are completely against it, and those who are open minded enough to see it from both perspectives, but is neutral about it in the end remember fcukers, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence isn't it funny how back in the day humans used to believe the earth was flat, & if you weren't down with this FACT(at the time), you'd probably be beheaded galileo would have ended up six feet below if he didn't agree with the church(government or church, some shit like that) that the SUN revolved around the earth, even though he strongly believed the EARTH revolved around the sun(although he chose life over his pride & research haha), and here we are today, still revolving around the sun gonna eat this fucking sausage in a bun with some biere its gonna be creammmmmmmmm FREETHOUGHT WHAAAAAT.

trying to equate nonsense lies with galileo is the height of disingenuous bollocks. i mean honestly

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN trying to equate nonsense lies with galileo is the height of disingenuous bollocks. i mean honestly

The worst of all? It's historically inaccurate as hell.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Im not sure where you get your peculiar understanding of isms from but the ability to influence those in government (as either an individual or a lobby or a corporation) is at the heart of modern democracy. Your assertion that �true� capitalist businesses don�t influence government policy is just nonsense. Also, can you provide any examples of the bilderberg group or CFR exerting undue influence for nefarious ends?

When he linked the words fascism and corporationism, he was referring to the fact that most large corporations are in effect a fascist dictatorship. At their head they have a CEO with complete power and very rigid hierarchies. He is also correct in saying that a lot of companies don't want government intervention in their activities. However, he's wrong everywhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think there's really a conspiracy theorist mindset, just a lot of stupidity directed at a certain subject. Some conspiracy theories are probably true. Some are quite convincing despite being unproven. Others are, however, obviously ludicrous. The difference between a heathily cynical person and a conspiracy theorist is merely that the latter lack the logic and intelligence to tell the likely from the ludicrous.

I beg your pardon? There's a reason why they're called 'conspiracy theorists' and not '9/11 theorists' or 'Roswell theorists'. It's because a majority of them will blindly believe the opposite of whatever the authorities or the media tell them. I don't think this qualifies them for 'stupidity directed at a certain subject'.

Rather, their mindset of logical reasoning and intelligence is inherently flawed, which you yourself admitted. In the context of life in general, I would say that the inability to employ logic is a fairly major flaw with serious implications.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated When he linked the words facism and corporationism, he was referring to the fact that most large corporations are in effect a facist dictatorship. At their head they have a CEO with complete power and very rigid hierarchies. He is also correct in saying that a lot of companies don't want government intervention in their activities. However, he's wrong everywhere else.

yeah, i know what he's trying to do. ive seen it done before. they try and compare the nazi and fascist models where the state had a fairly substantial influence over the private sector at the time. They like to pretend that because modern countries have a mixed economy that when business is using its influence it is somehow equated with fascism. They will sometimes quote a bit of Mussolini to make their point (no, im not searching for the quote in question), but all it really does is mock their understanding of the difference between fascist so-called corporatism and the existence of corporations in advanced liberal democracies.

Its bollocks, just like I said.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN trying to equate nonsense lies with galileo is the height of disingenuous bollocks. i mean honestly

meh, everyone thinks of different things when they hear or see the word conspiracy

uhh gotta stop editing so much

quote:

Originally posted by hundred back then THAT was a conspiracy, crazy righttt. i don't know what conspiracies you think of when you hear or see the word conspiracy though so ya

sorry, but Galileo had logic and evidence on his side, which automatically precludes him from being a conspiracy theorist. A theory involving a conspiracy /= conspiracy theory. CT has a very specific definition, as provided here by our friends at wiki.

quote:

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence; Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence. 2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact; Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience. 3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions; Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals. 4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators; Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person. 5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc. 6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning; Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones. Appeals to 'common sense'; Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena. 7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies; Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument. 8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review; Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge. 9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science; At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts. 10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities; Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving. 11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative; When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

Now, are you able to point out in which of the 11 trademarks you think Galileo fits into?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It's all right, it's a welcome twist Actually, that isn't so. There have been many attempts to find proofs that the parting of the red sea, for instance, made sense. I heard that, specially in the XIX century, it was common to look for rational explanations for biblical stories - and, it turns out the parting of the Red Sea may have been a ludicrously exaggerated account of something that may have indeed happened thanks to the low tide in the said sea during a certain time of the year that matches the probable day of the event.

sure, 1800s but now? Remember we have progressed significantly in science and thought since that time. Especially with space travel, genetics, and our ideas on evolution. Its obvious that those explanations are outdated. I am not saying that everything we know is correct and nonfalsifiable. But simply with our senses and preception of things they seem to make more sense. Relgion is simply an evolution of myth. Myths are not reality as we perceive through our senses.

quote:

Wait, there's something wrong with the way you numbered these examples. In the first example, the former is correct and the latter is false. The same applies to the second example. Without any concrete facts, these sentences are indeed similar.

not really

myths are myths they are both not real.. hence the 1 1. In essence none can be correct since none are true or hold empirical weight.

saying a myth is correct is essentially an oxymoron. Otherwise we would call it a truth. No?

Re: Conspiracy Theorists

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel What can you do to help them "see" the light? lol

Take away their shrooms.

Or, cut and paste a bunch of pictures onto construction paper about how things REALLY work, make a youtube video about it, and have them watch it. It's the only stuff that will convince them.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sorry, but Galileo had logic and evidence on his side, which automatically precludes him from being a conspiracy theorist. A theory involving a conspiracy /= conspiracy theory. CT has a very specific definition, as provided here by our friends at wiki. Now, are you able to point out in which of the 11 trademarks you think Galileo fits into?

I thought wikipedia would be fairly impartial, but that's as good as any rebuttal of conspiracy theorists I've ever seen.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.