Why are conspiracy theorists so dumb?

Status
Not open for further replies.
burgertime2010

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
Regardless of any of this....who among us believes this is a conspiracy? Or, better yet, that pharmaceutical companies are acting on best interests of the patient?
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
we were losing 500,000 jobs a month when bush left office, smarty.

and many developed countries are below us. united arab emirates, mexico, poland, argentina, russia, brazil and many many more.

it's not my fault that you suck at facts.
Click to expand...
I hardly think mexico and brazil counts as a developed country. Russia??? Their old people freeze to death every winter! Once the circulation goes, they are dead men walking.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
jtprin said:
But he may develop cancer again within the next five years that may be much worse than the original cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849 “The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1 % in The USA” http://naturalsociety.com/chemotherapy-makes-cancer-far-worse/
Click to expand...
I know, it's like why even bother. Oh yea, because he would be dead already.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
I hardly think mexico and brazil counts as a developed country. Russia??? Their old people freeze to death every winter! Once the circulation goes, they are dead men walking.
Click to expand...
You should have stopped at the bolded.

Brazil is a developed country, in fact, it is part of BRIC; Brazil, Russia, India and China, a progressively fast approaching global power. And what is more interesting about Brazil, is that they are much more self sustaining than any of the countries listed above. I'd rather not waste my time reprinting information that is so easily Googled. I suggest you try it.

Mexico is also a developed country. Maybe you do not understand the definition of "developed". Again, Google is your friend.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
You should have stopped at the bolded.

Brazil is a developed country, in fact, it is part of BRIC; Brazil, Russia, India and China, a progressively fast approaching global power. And what is more interesting about Brazil, is that they are much more self sustaining than any of the countries listed above. I'd rather not waste my time reprinting information that is so easily Googled. I suggest you try it.

Mexico is also a developed country. Maybe you do not understand the definition of "developed". Again, Google is your friend.
Click to expand...
Was joke. Maybe you didnt catch the freezing old people part?
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Overall_Poverty.jpg

Developed areas yes. Mainly the major cities but the majority of mexico is lacking infastructure and is piss poor.
 
A

Amerikaner

New Member
See 4 is bad with grammar. Sheep defending monsanto ... The same people who brought us agent orange to spray on all of our brave soldiers like test dummies... Then turn thier backs on them when they are dying and want to know what made them sick... Yeah i think they will make great healthy food for us. Next your going to defend spent uranium and how again us soldiers where allowed to die because its better than letting them know you exposed them to a weapon sprayed all over the place with a half life of 4.5 billion years. The government would never do anything to hurt its goons right ? Look at what happened to the bonus marchers after wwi if you want to see the true face of capitalism wiki or google bonus marchers. Im sure sheep can mount a defense for any of the topics though.
 
burgertime2010

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
loquacious said:
Just a bit, I just wish people would educate themselves before spreading rampant theories. I figure if maybe one person would wise up and actually do a little research, I would feel a lot better!
Click to expand...
I am not seeing your examples as proof that conspiracy theories are for the unintelligent and therefore wrong. Seems like you have your mind made up about many ideas in that case.......wondering if you have the proof and have done your research. I am not any "ist" but don't be dismissive of those who are seeking truth differently than you.
 
burgertime2010

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
Amerikaner said:
See 4 is bad with grammar. Sheep defending monsanto ... The same people who brought us agent orange to spray on all of our brave soldiers like test dummies... Then turn thier backs on them when they are dying and want to know what made them sick... Yeah i think they will make great healthy food for us. Next your going to defend spent uranium and how again us soldiers where allowed to die because its better than letting them know you exposed them to a weapon sprayed all over the place with a half life of 4.5 billion years. The government would never do anything to hurt its goons right ? Look at what happened to the bonus marchers after wwi if you want to see the true face of capitalism wiki or google bonus marchers. Im sure sheep can mount a defense for any of the topics though.
Click to expand...
So, sheep are those following liberal thought lines? Those defending the capital institutions? Those who what exactly?
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
burgertime2010 said:
I am not seeing your examples as proof that conspiracy theories are for the unintelligent and therefore wrong. Seems like you have your mind made up about many ideas in that case.......wondering if you have the proof and have done your research. I am not any "ist" but don't be dismissive of those who are seeking truth differently than you.
Click to expand...
Just read the thread. Plenty of proof that conspiracy theorists are nuts.

And you have it backwards. Conspiracy theories are wrong, therefore people that believe in them and perpetuate them are unintelligent and easily duped.
 
A

Amerikaner

New Member
They have been shown to kill bees which normally polinate as nature intended. We are sneaking in laws on like page 800 of a bill that will allow monsanto to continue thier work regardless of possible negative effects. Like his terminator seeds google it. They fucking made agent orange and claimed it was safe. Reason enough to be sceptical for me .
 
A

Amerikaner

New Member
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange i assume you know the story behind it. Spraying it all over vietnam then sending our boys in to get sick from contact deliberate or not, it was attempted to hide the fact it made people very sick instead of helping them. Fuck sending blacks to go die when they couldnt even vote sounds like capitalism but thats off topic . More links coming about other gmo topics
 
burgertime2010

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
while i maintain that the jury is still out on GMOs, i share your belief that conspiracy theories about them, or conspiracy theorism in general, is the sign of a weak mind.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/361897-inside-conspiracism.html

The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy. - H.L. Mencken

Conspiracy theories are popular because no matter what they posit, they are all actually comforting, because they all are models of radical simplicity. - William Gibson

For some individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.

Psychologists believe that the*search for meaning*is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea. Once cognized,*confirmation bias*and avoidance ofcognitive dissonance*may reinforce the belief.

Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group*does not include*the believer. The believer may then feel excused of any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance.

Humanistic psychologists argue that even if the cabal behind the conspiracy is almost always perceived as hostile there is, often, still an element of reassurance in it, for conspiracy theorists, in part because it is more consoling to think that complications and upheavals in human affairs, at least, are created by human beings rather than factors beyond human control. Belief in such a cabal is a device for reassuring oneself that certain occurrences are not random, but ordered by a human intelligence. This renders such occurrences comprehensible and potentially controllable. If a cabal can be implicated in a sequence of events, there is always the hope, however tenuous, of being able to break the cabal's power - or joining it and exercising some of that power oneself. Finally, belief in the power of such a cabal is an implicit assertion of human dignity - an often unconscious but necessary affirmation that man is not totally helpless, but is responsible, at least in some measure, for his own destiny.

According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause. The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events' — in which the president died — than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal. Connected with pareidolia, the genetic tendency of human beings to find patterns in coincidence, this allows the "discovery" of conspiracy in any significant event.

The*furtive fallacy*is an informal fallacy of emphasis. Historian David Hackett Fischer identified it as the belief that significant facts of history are necessarily sinister, and that "history itself is a story of causes mostly insidious and results mostly invidious." It is more than a conspiracy theory in that it does not merely consider the possibility of hidden motives and deeds, but insists on them. In its extreme form, the fallacy represents general paranoia.

Michael Kelly, a*Washington Post*journalist and critic of anti-war movements on both the left and right, coined the term "fusion paranoia" to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he claimed were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or anti-government views.

Social critics have adopted this term to refer to how the synthesis of paranoid conspiracy theories, which were once limited to American fringe audiences, has given them mass appeal and enabled them to become commonplace in mass media, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They warn that this development may not only fuel lone wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as the rise of a revolutionary right-wing populist movement capable of subverting the established political powers.
Click to expand...
Meh.....I don't see the inverse being valid. Are hard-lined people who support all benevolent transparency on behalf of the powers that be, worthy of praise? The dominant paradigm is comprised of the strong minded? We are one or the other? I am tired of being told how to process, what makes for reasonable, and most of all the black and white peanut butter and jelly reality that states some impossible knowledge someone is pretending to know. Look, I like to take it one issue at a time and give new ideas time to germinate....I take what I want. I am curious....what are you defending? Why? I just don't see dismissive as a trait of the righteous, no offense intended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top