To our friends that this community's output has offended - @mobbs, @acidyo, @lordbutterfly
Fine, ill bite. First of all i am not offended by any of the posts on the trending page. I do not get offended, ever, and i support your right to write even the most outlandish of posts that you want. Sometimes i even have fun reading them.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are the new age equivalent of religious fundamentalist thinking.
The pinnacle of unscientific thinking in the modern world. Thats why i oppose them greatly.
There is a huge difference between what a "conspiracy" is and what you guys do.
HUGE difference.
Conspiracies happen all the time. They happen in your work place, they happen within your family, they happen on HIVE. Conspiracy is a name for a very common occurrence.
But what you guys have done is twist even mentioning the word "conspiracy" into having a pejorative connotation.
This is why i find conspiracy theories as being absolutely absurd.
You set a presupposition. "Government is evil and it wants to hurt you". (or something in that line of thinking) Something that is patently absurd. From that point of view you observe the world and align every event with that belief.
"Conspiracy theories" in reality arent really theories, theyre unfounded gossip, and the existence of actual conspiracies doesnt IN ANY WAY support their truthfulness.
Just because conspiracies exist doesnt mean that everything you label as a conspiracy gets a pass.
You guys twisted it and turned everything into presuppositional quackery where you look for information that would in any way support what you already believe beforehand, dismissing everything else.
Its idiotic and youre almost always wrong but because you cry foul to absolutely everything you make a correct guess sometimes.
A broken clock is correct twice a day.
That is what the conspiracy theory community does. That is what you guys are.
You guess shit and hope youre right eventually.
And your list... most of it isnt actually proven, rather just nonsense.
I appreciate your willingness to criticize. I utterly depend on criticism to correct me when I am wrong, and I know I will never learn the truth unless criticism reveals facts to me I did not know.
However, I cannot agree that only things that can be proven are true. Science is a method that doesn't work that way, and is the most powerful mechanism to reveal only what cannot be true. That most powerful means of providing empirical evidence can never prove anything to be true.
All it does is prove that something isn't true, and that excludes that theory from the possiblities that remain potentially true. Newton's theory of gravity perfectly illustrates this. It provided a mathematical framework for calculating orbits that works so well we still use it today to steer our spacecraft even though we know the theory itself is factually incorrect (because it's close enough to steer by and far easier to calculate) and that Einstein's theories have disproved it.
There is no proof that you are right, and never can be. It is criticism that is the actual mechanism of science. Peer review. Proof the theory criticized cannot be true. Because being wrong about facts can kill me, I want nothing more than to be proved wrong when I am wrong, so that my stupidity won't kill me.
So, your intentions are noble, and nothing is more welcome to me than proof I am wrong. Science! However, take a look at what your comment actually says. It doesn't assert even one actual fact. It doesn't prove shit. It's just a position statement, a diatribe against criticism itself.
It's bullshit. Prove me wrong, or STFU.
That being said, please, please, please prove me wrong. I want nothing more than the future to be wonderful for my sons whom I love more than life itself, and to be comforted in my dotage that they will be fine.
So, thanks very much for your good intentions, but actually achieve them instead of just feeling good about your intentions.
"You can't prove me wrong" is the hallmark of an unfalsifiable hypothesis (naked appeal to ignorance).
Yes, and logic reveals what must necessarily be true (apodictic truth).
What's left between what must be true and what cannot be true is QUALIA (INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION).
Only until it's refined by something being proved wrong. Newton had logic on his side and his theory of gravity was obviously true for centuries - until it was proved wrong by Einstein.
I believe it was only "proven" incomplete and or lacking precision.
A "working model" like Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is neither technically "true" or technically "false".
A (scientific) "working model" is judged solely on EFFICACY (its propensity to produce accurate predictions).
It may be a "fiction" but it doesn't matter, as long as it's a "useful and reliable fiction".
Science is no "arbiter of truth" as much as it's a "crucible of EFFICACY".
Efficacy has no relation to factual accuracy, withal.
The theory that Newton proposed to explain why the math worked was factually incorrect, and Einstein's work revealed this. That doesn't mean Einstein's math was more efficacious.
Science doesn't prove efficacy. It disproves theories that cannot be true. That's all it does.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity,
but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications.
Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at small distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun). LINK
Newton wasn't "factually incorrect".
Newton was simply "lacking requisite precision".
What method "proves efficacy"?
Certainly in some cases, but how exactly do you think it does this "disproving"?
It can reveal flaws in a hypothesis, but it does far more than just that.
Newton's Law was not merely superseded in mathematical precision by Einstein. It was utterly disproved. The math explaining orbital mechanics based on Newton's Law is far simpler, and is more efficacious - but less accurate than relativistic maths - because the math is close enough for government work, despite the theory that explained gravity being factually incorrect.
This is exactly the example of science not being used to create efficacy I intended, but that science can only disprove factually incorrect theories. Even though the theory is proved wrong, the math remains useful. It's not right, but it's close enough.
That isn't science. It's engineering.
Don't appreciate anything he has to say. He's a complete and utter wanker. I left him a special comment above, just to remind him what he's really about. he is a hypocrite of the highest order, and claims that a list of "tweets" is the all encompassing evidence he needs to prove his own "conspiracy theories".
It's difficult for me to understand how some folks think. Perhaps it's because they really don't, but just string together the bits they're told in an order that looks like thoughts.
Thanks!
Poisoning-the-well is a surprisingly effective technique.
Your own (apparent) eagerness to "rush-to-disqualify" those who seem to disagree with you is a good example of this.
I certainly seek to resolve points of disagreement, through engaging with folks with differing opinions, as you well know from experience. I reckon that reveals I consider them qualified to have opinions, and that I value their personal opinions enough to undertake discussion I hope will result in consilience.
There are few folks I don't think are qualified to speak their opinions, and those are just trolls, whom I might even agree with. I don't understand how I disqualify folks who disagree with me. I fairly often change my opinion because someone disagreed with me and proved they were right to my great benefit.
I mistook some of @lordbutterfly's statements as trollery, but later realized he did simply disagree. My earlier dismissal of his commentary was due to the fact I thought he was unwilling to consider the evidence. That's just trolling. However, when he pointed out he did consider the evidence but disagreed with me, I changed my tone.
Poisoning the well works very well. It's not an argument though. As you state, it's a tactic that degrades discussion rather than improves it IMHO.
@lordbutterfly
Here is some actual "science" for you, ****How about the methodology of the eyes?**** That means, you look at the actual evidence with your actual eyes. Eyes, yes. Unless your trying to tell us seeing isn't believing anymore.
**"Trust the Television, Trust the Television", that's what your saying LOL **
I doubt you even understand the meaning of the word study. It means study, so who's study are you talking about? Which study? Which science?
Trust the television doctors and stock market companies. That your answer to everything and that's a conspiracy theory, give me a break dude, nobody believes that shit anymore.
Your a conspiracy theory my friend. Either your in on it or absolutely tamed stupid.... maybe both.
@newworldfreedom 🤠
P.s. In staid of fighting, we can also just talk over these people and share the real relevant facts.
Did you know that 90% of all cancers are probably curable with natural medicine? @lordbutterfly
Source: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/run-from-the-cure/
User rating is off the chart and all real studies back it up. It's so common nowadays, you probably have a friend that has tried the Rick Simpson Method successfully, And if not, definitively a friend of a friend. It world wide, every country, every city. Natural Medicine Markets are growing heavily in all countries, 10%-15% in some
Have a look, RSO is just 1 natural medicine from thousands without the proper healing diet.
Now if "they" don't even care about 100% of all people, do you really think they care about 0,01%? Answer us that? 🤠
No they are not.
Pedling that bullshit is a sure way to kill yourself or your loved one.
Canabis will relieve your pain but thats it, or in the case of my friend that smokes it all the time, make him forget his car keys on an island making him take the ferry back just to see that the car keys arent actually on that island but he left the car keys in his car door back on mainland.
Or in another case make him drive off the road into some families back yard.
Smoking shit that makes you dizzy and euphoric doesnt make you cancer free.
Haha. Good one.
Posted using Dapplr
@lordbutterfly What a name......
**
"In addition, numerous cell culture and animal studies showed antitumor effects of cannabinoids in various cancer types."**
Source of the study >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387667/
Your talking absolute bollox mate. 🤠
You literally have nothing. Not a single thing to support your conspiracy religion.
We all mentioned solid facts with references. You just talk shit.
Source
More solid evidence that most cancer are easily treated with the infamous Rick Simpson method >> https://www.itv.com/thismorning/articles/cannabis-oil-cured-my-cancer-now-i-want-it-legalised
I can't take you seriously Lord butterfly. 🤠
Let me ask you this... Do you believe everything someone says online or only those things you want to be true?
Please debunk this,
lol, your idea that some governments are not corrupt and are not up too evil and insane plans is a conspiracy theory.
What's your proof on this "theory"?
newworldfreedom 🤠
!ENGAGE 25
ENGAGEtokens."patently absurd"
Lol, interesting choice of words ;)
"You set a presupposition. "Government is evil and it wants to hurt you". (or something in that line of thinking) Something that is patently absurd."
Are you from the moon? This is earth, planet has been corrupt since we formed groups.
Are you from these times? Evidence of warcrimes, mass poisoning and corruption is lining up higher then Mount Everest. More than half of the conspiracy theories you mention were actually crimes against humanity with names, dates and shit loads of evidence.
Show me evidence that the US government is innocent? Lol
This one is either in on it or tamed double blind
Not sure which one, it likes to use expensive and non common words, non facts, common phrases which might trigger emotional decisions.
I don't trust 'it'. 🤠
And there lies the problem. In that very sentence. You people just dont know how to think.
I dont have time for it... I got to go... I have to feed my unicorns. prove to me they dont exist.
Lol, yes you can't answer that question because you know it a ABSOLUTE LIE and in these times you should be ashamed of yourself.
No you need to proof to us that your unicorn exists with checkable facts.
Like "we" can prove to "you" that many governments are corrupt and up to evil plans.
Enjoy your unicorn. 🤠
Its real. They live in my closet. They are invisible so you cant see or hear them because they live on another plane of existence.
Only if youre in tune with "the truth" can you see the unicorns. Dont be a sheep.
Ever heard of building 7? It fell down like a demolition crew set charges but there was no evidence of explosives at the site. Only a unicorn from another plane of existance would have the power to take down WTC 7. My friend that is an exobiologist can confirm the possibility of extraterrestrial unicorns that are relatives of the anunnaki and the lizard people that want to establish the new world order.
If you look at the Zecharia Sitchin translation of ancient Sumerian texts, that he hid and only shared with the privileged few of us, it is the Unicorns that will save the human race from Bill Gates and his evil vaccination chips and Hillary and her child sacrificial kabal.
Unicorns will set you free. Dont be a sheep. Dont let HARP and chemtrails brainwash you.
Only if you free your mind and accept the Unicorn king as your lord an savior will you survive!
That is factually incorrect. There were samples taken of the remnant material that revealed thermic materiel was present.
You undertake a logical fallacy regarding your unicorns, and seem to not understand the scientific method. Remember Carl Sagan's aphorism, that extraordinary claims, such as unicorns in the closet, require extraordinary evidence.
The scientific method depends on evidence that is revealed by tests of a theory. You go to pains to make your unicorns untestable, and this exemplifies your rejection of the actual evidence presented regarding 9/11.
When you claim peer reviewed evidence of thermate in the residue of 9/11 does not exist, you expose your zeolotry and faith in your overlords. You want to believe, so you ignore evidence.
You obey.
Let me know when you actually consider factual evidence. Until then you're just trolling.
The thermite bit is one of the most absurd claims. I will not attempt to debunk any nonsensical idea you have. They have already been debunked numerous times as was the thermite one. There was no thermite.
All you have to do is research it a bit.
By responding to unfounded claims i give them legitimacy and anything that can be asserted without evidence should be dismissed.
I dont have time for it. Im sorry but i need to feed my unicorn.
Feeding unicorns is what you do.
Debunking is not just making a claim. Prove it's wrong to debunk, and that has not happened. You ignore what you desperately want to not know, and the University of Fairbanks has a peer reviewed study regarding Building Seven that is exactly what you must not know.
Good luck. Without reason and knowledge, luck is all you have.
Prove it, this is 2020, you can copy and paste check-able facts.
Otherwise stop talking shit please. 🤠
"You can't prove me wrong" is the hallmark of an unfalsifiable hypothesis (naked appeal to ignorance).
Dont be a sheep! Dont buy into the CIA narrative! They only want you to think that this isnt true!
Look at building 7! There was no proof of explosives so how could the building fall down like that!
Extraterrestrial unicorns is how! Thats why you cant take the Bill Gates poison vaccine! You will never be able to see the unicorns! You will never be able to communicate with them or save yourself.
DMT right now is the only way to come in contact with them because they poison you with chemtrails so you cant and the new world order wants to to ban it! Why? Because the government wants to keep your prisoner! DMT can be found in the human brain. How can it be bad!
Dont let them fool you. Free your mind!
In other words... Everything you people say is bollocks.
I'm serious, are you on any prescription drugs?
Rush to disqualify (ad hominem attack).
Picking a soft-target is a good way to confirm your suspicions.
I think i dealt with most of the things you guys threw at me.
Even managed to ridicule this way of thinking. I dealt with clear examples. I did answer most of your questions. What is there more to do?
Do you have something else?
Atlantis? Religion? Flat earth?
Something else?
I got into this stuff when i was 15 years old. When i got to college and i learned how to think it all fell apart. I had a group during that time called "Skeptics in the pub" where we discussed all this. From religion to flat earth to 9,11. I heard it all.
Give me one more. Ill see if i can answer your "hard question".
You've been quite a good sport about this whole thing,
Please debunk this,
@lordbutterfly, are you joking, or did you miss the news that government was the #1 killer of humanity in the 20th century? Or do you not consider genocide and mass murder of civilians “evil”? Government killed an estimated 169 million people in the 20th century alone outside of wars.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
108 million more killed in war...
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/what-every-person-should-know-about-war.html
So...The government does hurt you, whether they want to or not is irrelevant, as it is what they must do to exist, it is their very nature, as governments as they currently exist are ruled by force, and funded by robbing the people via taxation and fines without their consent. They are also the deadliest force on the face of the earth, and this is a historical fact and observable present reality.
Seems to me the real quack theory is that governments aren’t evil and harmful to humanity! But i’d Love to hear your fact/source-based reasoning as to why your stance is that governments are inherently good and non-harmful. Until then, the evidence supports what you deemed to be “patently absurd”. Do you consider reality as patently absurd or just prefer ignoring reality to support you beliefs in this matter?
Thats so ridiculous that i have to laugh out loud. Give me a sec. bwaaaaahahahahahahahahhaha.
So you will honestly assign guilt for the atrocities of the human race to shitty administration and current democratic systems?
What about ideologies? Where do ideologies come in to play? Nowhere? Communism? Nazism? Non democratic systems? Theocracies? Dictatorships? Anarchy?
Its like saying trucks are evil because a muslim drove a truck through a group of people.
Why not take another step and assign "EVIL" to "Humanity"? Why not go further and assign it to fauna.
You wont, you will stop where it suits you.
What you actually should do is look at each example by its own merits (or the opposite). What government is, is in no way evil. Its a way to increase efficiency of society beneficial services that arent interesting to the public sector.
It often fails at that, due to numerous factors, but to assign a label to the government as being "EVIL" is absurd. Its just a organization of human beings.
🤣
Just stop. Stop. Yore being absurd honestly.
Although it would be hilarious watching you go up to the judge and say:
"Your honor!!! I do not consent to being fined for driving drunk and toppling over that fire hydrant and afterwards vomiting on the police officers shoes. YOU SIR ARE EVIL!!!!"
🤣
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that I am evil, although it is absurd accusation having never met me and not knowing me. I would reiterate, however, that it is government, not myself that threatens the entire citizenry (at least in my country, America) with force in order to extract taxes without consent, to be used to fund wars that I also do not consent or support. THAT is theft, to fund killing, and THAT is evil. Believe what you want, what the judge would say in a situation is no representative of righteousness, for judges are paid to uphold a system which only exists by forcefully extracting money from people against their will - by robbery.
Drunk drivers are by no means the only people being fined. Also people not wearing masks are currently being given ridiculously expensive fines, people driving without insurance, people not wearing seatbelts, etc. and so on. Most fines are issued for nonviolent infractions.
I will concede that much of humanity is indeed evil, otherwise they would never support governments that initiate unjust force against peaceful people in order to stay in power. Go on believing that governments are inherently good. Can you point to any government that doesn’t support itself through taxation without consent of the ones being taxed? If not, then my point stands. Robbery is wrong no matter who robs who. Your support of one robber because he’s called government only betrays your support of armed robbery. And apparently the war which that robbery (taxation) funds.
Since you want to look at governments individually, I’ll single one government out, the US government, and point to all the wars it is waging for 20 years now, invasion and occupation of foreign countries that never attacked us, and support of al-Qaeda terrorists, and say that is evil. Maybe you disagree and support the killing and destruction of people you’ve never met, but I don’t.
And fyi, Hitler was a democratically elected leader, so the notion that democracies are incapable of carrying out such atrocities in historically incorrect.
As to the individual ideologies, It is the ideology of state supremacy over the individual that remains the same in absolutely every scenario. Nazism/communism/etc. are only different ways to wrap that underlying ideology. Anyone who believes government has the right to force a peaceful person who has not harmed anyone else or their property, to do anything against their will, holds this ideology of state supremacy.
Do you believe governments have the right to compel others to do whatever they want, or do you believe that stops at some line, and if so, what is that line? And who draws that line? And what if that line doesn’t protect you at some point in the future, do you still defend those initiating force against peaceful people?
@lordbutterfly, are you upvoting your own comments!!??
yes, sometimes when i want visibility.
You are literally the ONLY reason I NEVER SELF-VOTE.
Ok, maybe you and @trafalgar...
Human experimentation in the United States in the 20th century,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
U.S. Army Private Paul Brown managed to obtain a copy of the The Honolulu Advertiser just after they have been delivered — and before the front page was ripped off. When he inquired about it, he was told it was orders “from the top brass.” - LINK
In the interests of civility, would you please provide an example of a specific "conspiracy theory" that you believe is particularly dangerous and obviously false.
The world's MOST DANGEROUS CONSPIRACY-THEORY,
Explained in detail in 3 minutes,
I love George Carlin but at the end of the day this is some old guy having a rant about some bad things about capitalism, trying to entertain people, while the fact still stands that the world has never in the history of humanity had it better.
I love flat-earthers, but at the end of the day this is some old guys (and gals) having a rant about some bad things, trying to entertain people.
I love 911-truthers, but at the end of the day this is some old guys (and gals) having a rant about some bad things, trying to entertain people.
I love deep-state Q-anons, but at the end of the day this is some old guys (and gals) having a rant about some bad things, trying to entertain people.
WHAT GEORGE CARLIN IS SAYING IS TRULY SUBVERSIVE. HE'S POINTING OUT THAT OUR "LEADERS" ARE ACTIVELY LYING TO US AND WE SHOULDN'T TRUST THEM.
As a counter-argument, I'd like to present exhibit #1,
In 6 minutes,
Should i expect a communist to have a positive outlook on the world?
So when i say the world is best its ever been you pull out a video of a guy that died 40 years ago as the relevant individual to speak on it?
😂
Cmon man, cmon. hahaha
He makes some very interesting points about how history is taught in such a way as to make us THINK "we're so much smarter and better off than at any previous time".
But that isn't necessarily "factually true".
I set the link to skip the first two minutes in order to get to the relevant points as quickly as possible.
Too bad you refuse to consider any ideas from people you might disagree with (or who died more than 40 years ago).
That seems like a strangely arbitrary "barrier to entry".
Wild animals are more intelligent than domesticated animals.
Here's a relevant clip from someone who is currently alive (although I'm still not sure why that matters).