Why do people believe conspiracy theories?
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
Oh, don't play the "wounded conspiracy theorist" muir. The reason why he isn't trying is probably because he probably has tried in the past, they wouldn't listen to basic logic, and then just gave up. I've nearly done the same thing.
Exactly true. Anytime that scientific evidence disagrees with their perspective, they just chalk it up to, "oh that's just government liars seeding disinformation or something like that....". It's not logical to pick and choose what's real and what's not based on whether or not it agrees with you.
Every person who self-identifies as a conspiracy theorist that I have ever met fits his "blanket dismissal" (as you call it) in my opinion. I've NEVER met such a contradiction.
However any good science accepts there's an exception to every rule in some way. Even saying there's an exception to every rule, there's exceptions to that, lol.
Maybe if conspiracy theories as a whole were more reasonable or reliable, then more credence would be given. However, since they are not, I must say that his statement is not unwarranted. I met one lady who thought aliens were running the government, and aliens were being added to the population slowly to take us over, and she thought that the missing mylasian airplane proved that......
Perhaps it's an effect of some of the more wild conspiracy theories are the ones that stand out, while the more reasonable (basically the ones that are occasionally correct) are overshadowed by the wild conjecture that is more popularized. Just makes conspiracy theories as a whole more distrusted.
Last edited:
I think that is the case but I dont really see it as a case of conspiracy, conspiracy requires conspirators, like in Enemy of the State it wasnt the system which permitted the surveillence and assasinations by that politician which were the pivotal to the plot but the abuse, corruption and conspiracy of that one politicians.
So I tend to think that sociology or politics or critical theory are superior to conspiracy theory.
Of course they're almost the same anyway, if one has bothered to read any history besides just memorizing dates. Caesar was pretty mainstream, until he was just too mainstream to handle.
Last edited:
Lol, muir every time I try this with you (thrice now), you don't even listen to consider the alternate perspective, and your suggesting that he should? You once told me that you already know the way the world is. You have no doubt. That's why you won't consider my perspective, and your actually telling other people to have an open mind? I'm calling shenanigans....
I know your perspective. I had it myself before i learned things
I'm not playing anything...don't missrepresent me.....i'm saying that unless you listen to what someone is saying and give them a fair hearing you will never be able to test your own currently held perceptions of reality
That's not playing the victim...that's telling you to wise up
Now look....you have filled up the internet with more words but you have moved yourself or anyone reading this NO CLOSER TO THE TRUTH
This has taken me my time to respond which is time i could have spent giving information
If you're looking for someone to debate with for the sake of debating then i'm not that person; if you are looking for the truth then you will find in me someone on the same quest if you like
I've been on it for a while now and believe i have some pieces of the puzzle which i am very happy to share. if you are interested to hear them i am interested in speaking about them but don't bog me down in idle talk
The bolded part is the part that is slowing down your learning
A 'conspiracy theorist' who is worth their salt doesn't put themself in a box like that
A conspiracy theorist listens to everyone and everything
They listen to politics, sociology, economics etc and they even listen to their opponents
You on the other hand have ring-fenced your own mind
+1
Have you noticed how the naysaysers love to bog discussions down in opinion and empty words that do nothing to expand consciousness?
They always want to steer things away from getting down to the real nitty gritty of the events and issues themselves...i think they are afraid of what they will find there
It's probably true, but not finding it doesn't make it untrue or true.
I have absolutely no doubt that conspiracies could and do exist, and even the "grand" sort. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well... I'm in a buttheaded mood, they're stupid or paying attention to all the wrong things. There's a very good reason they threw someone with a background in history onto MJ-12, just sayin'.
Last edited:
It's probably true, but not finding it doesn't make it untrue or true.
Oh there are plenty of grand conspiracies which is why there is so much discussion on places like this forum as people are left scratching their heads wondering whats going on in the world (because the mainstream corporate media tell them nothing useful)
The nazis would call these grand conspiracies 'big lies'
As you imply part of the big lie is controlling the history books!
Last edited:
And I agree with you 100% on that. However, I was simply trying to point out that in my experience, you have not offered me such a courtesy.
I tried to talk to you. You remember that vaccine debate? I would spend hours working on my posts checking and double checking reliability of sourcing, word choice, reasonableness, and clarity. However most of what you did was copy and paste articles that agreed with your perspective, whether they were reasonable or not. Also, I would post an argument, then we would move on, then later you would list the same argument again as if you weren't listening. That's why I was getting frustrated.
You DON'T know everything, and arguably have very skewed perspectives. However you don't seem willing to consider that your perspectives are skewed, only point out faults in others perspectives that differ with yours, and base your arguments on conjecture. Not to mention an unwillingness to accept basic facts that argue with your perspective. I'm sorry muir, I just find that illogical.
I don't wish to sound mean or insulting so I do sincerely apologize if I seem as such, I'm just trying to get you to see things from my perspective. Perhaps then you and I can understand each other better.
Yes, we are both on a quest for truth muir, but I would argue neither of us knows what the ACTUAL truth is. Maybe we could at least agree on that?
It's probably true, but not finding it doesn't make it untrue or true.
I think we all agree that conspiracies do happen. It's just that conspiracy theories have a bad name because it seems many of them are terrible at proving causation and rely heavily on conjecture and wild speculation. Not all.
It was unfair for and of us to say that ALL conspiracy theories/theorists are like that, but it is true that it happens, and more so in conspiracy theory circles than scientific circles. That's why many of us find them unreliable as a whole. Conspiracy theories can move into the realm of science, if they were to do actual science. Some have, the JFK incident for example. And those are the ones I personally find more reasonable.
And i'm saying i have read your posts
What you post is state sanctioned information for example from the CDC but we all know what they have to say about these things because we are bombarded with those perceptions all the time so whats the point of you doing their work for them?
I'm offering information that bypasses their lies so if you are interested in hearing a perspective outside of the one that our minds are bombarded with 24/7 then lets talk
Imagine if the government is beaming out a message through various signals and mediums for example through radio, TV, internet, newspapers, magazines, billboards, school, advertising, cinema screens, comic books etc etc that is constantly saying: 'yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow'
But one day you meet a person that is saying to you 'green, green, green, green'
if you are interested in hearing about that new and different message then you need to listen rather than just shouting back at the person 'yellow, yellow, yellow'
Because we all know 'yellow'...we have all been hearing 'yellow' all of our lives, so if we want to know what the truth is then we need to put 'yellow' down for a moment and listen to 'green'
All you've been doing is shouting 'yellow' to me...but i know that already...i don't want to hear it anymore
And here's another thing.....these posters above saying 'no i only listen to this type of thinking or this source of information'.....all they are doing is limiting themselves. Thinkabout it logically.....if you are searching for the truth then that means you don't yet have the truth and if you don't yet have the truth then how do you know where the truth is going to come from?
If you don't know where the truth is goin to come from then you need to listen to everything....you need to listen to 'green' for a while
You were posting government propaganda which i am already familiar with
We are ALL familiar with it...why do we want to hear it spoken again?
I was offering a different perspective...but its upto you if you want to hear that
Nope that's why i said i am on a quest for the truth
But what i have done is get together lots of pieces of the puzzle to the point now where i can discearn the outlines of a picture and if you want to know what i can see then i am happy to tell you and i am happy to provide pieces of the puzzle so that you can see it too
You haven't provided any facts to counter what i'm saying...all you have provided is government propaganda....and relying on government propaganda for your info is illogical
Then put down the governmnt propaganda and LISTEN to what i'm saying
Ask me questions instead of trying to dig around for a piece of government propaganda to throw back at me
Check the information i'm giving you...do your own research into it
As i say...i have some pieces of the puzzle
[video=youtube;SoQ-9XHEjKY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoQ-9XHEjKY[/video]
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/210564-epa-says-hard-drive-crashed-emails-lost
Another agency tells Congress: File not found
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy confirmed to the House Oversight Committee Wednesday that her staff is unable to provide lawmakers all of the documents they have requested on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, because of a 2010 computer crash.
“We’re having trouble getting the data off of it and we’re trying other sources to actually supplement that,” McCarthy said. “We’re challenged in figuring out where those small failures might have occurred and what caused them occur, but we’ve produced a lot of information.” The revelation came less than two weeks after IRS officials told Congress that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the controversy over the targeting of conservative tax-exempt groups, also suffered from a hard drive crash that makes it difficult to comply with records requests.
The committee suspects that Phillip North, who worked for the EPA in Alaska, decided with his colleagues to veto the proposed Pebble Mine near Bristol Bay in 2009, before the agency even began researching its potential impacts on the environment.
Committee staffers have been trying for about a year to interview North, but he has been in New Zealand and refuses to cooperate, they said.
“We have tried to serve a subpoena on your former employee and we have asked for the failed hard drive from this Alaskan individual who now is in New Zealand, and seems to never be returning,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the committee’s chairman, said Wednesday.
Emails provided by the committee show that EPA told congressional investigators about the hard drive crash months ago. But McCarthy said she only told the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) about the problem Tuesday.
The NARA enforces the Federal Records Act, which governs federal agencies’ responsibilities to maintain records.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said EPA probably violated the Federal Records Act by not backing up North’s emails.
“It looks like the Federal Records Act has been violated by the EPA,” Meadows said. Did he preserve his emails? That is required by the Federal Records Act.”
“We may have some emails that we cannot produce that we should have kept,” McCarthy admitted.
The Federal Records Act has also taken center stage in the IRS controversy. David Ferreiro, head of the NARA, told lawmakers Tuesday that the IRS did not follow the Federal Records Act in its policies for preserving emails.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-hard-drive-crashed-emails-lost#ixzz35k8L2Aqt
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/210564-epa-says-hard-drive-crashed-emails-lost
Another agency tells Congress: File not found
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy confirmed to the House Oversight Committee Wednesday that her staff is unable to provide lawmakers all of the documents they have requested on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, because of a 2010 computer crash.
“We’re having trouble getting the data off of it and we’re trying other sources to actually supplement that,” McCarthy said. “We’re challenged in figuring out where those small failures might have occurred and what caused them occur, but we’ve produced a lot of information.” The revelation came less than two weeks after IRS officials told Congress that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the controversy over the targeting of conservative tax-exempt groups, also suffered from a hard drive crash that makes it difficult to comply with records requests.
The committee suspects that Phillip North, who worked for the EPA in Alaska, decided with his colleagues to veto the proposed Pebble Mine near Bristol Bay in 2009, before the agency even began researching its potential impacts on the environment.
Committee staffers have been trying for about a year to interview North, but he has been in New Zealand and refuses to cooperate, they said.
“We have tried to serve a subpoena on your former employee and we have asked for the failed hard drive from this Alaskan individual who now is in New Zealand, and seems to never be returning,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the committee’s chairman, said Wednesday.
Emails provided by the committee show that EPA told congressional investigators about the hard drive crash months ago. But McCarthy said she only told the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) about the problem Tuesday.
The NARA enforces the Federal Records Act, which governs federal agencies’ responsibilities to maintain records.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said EPA probably violated the Federal Records Act by not backing up North’s emails.
“It looks like the Federal Records Act has been violated by the EPA,” Meadows said. Did he preserve his emails? That is required by the Federal Records Act.”
“We may have some emails that we cannot produce that we should have kept,” McCarthy admitted.
The Federal Records Act has also taken center stage in the IRS controversy. David Ferreiro, head of the NARA, told lawmakers Tuesday that the IRS did not follow the Federal Records Act in its policies for preserving emails.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-hard-drive-crashed-emails-lost#ixzz35k8L2Aqt
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
And this is the key. You assume I am wrong and don't honestly consider my perspective because you assume it's government propaganda. But that's not the case. I will talk about science. I admit that the first conversation we had (the one about politics) was different, but that's why I had to step out of that conversation. But in the vaccine debate, the cancer debate, I used science. You dismiss me because my perspective disagrees with yours so you think that I've fallen prey to the government conspiracy to rationalize the case. I dismiss your perspectives (the ones we have debated about *except the politics one*; I don't know enough to debate some of your other points) because they disagree with science, and I rationalize that by following scientifically accepted rationalizations. It is possible your perspective on the conspiracy is correct, I have not actually argued that. All I'm trying to point out is that your conspiracy is not enough to prove things like vaccine toxicity or cancer is a fungus.
Here's what I see that's happening. You assume the government is wrong. You see me saying the same things as the government, so I must be using the governments propaganda. Therefore I must be incorrect and anything I say is as unreliable as the government. I am being manipulated by the government in your eyes, and I'm blind to that. Poor me, but it's my own fault. Now let me ask you this. Did it ever occur to you that I might be saying some of the same things the government did because we are both basing our perspectives on science?
What I see is you make such assumptions, and you use supposed proofs to disagree with the government is saying to further your perspective that everything the government is saying is incorrect. Further than that, when you see something that you can't rationalize in this way, you dismiss it as part of the greater conspiracy that includes the government. I noticed this pattern in the cancer debate. You talked about Dr. Simoncici saying his perspective was correct. The government says there's no cure to cancer. Dr. Simoncici disagrees with the government, so he must be correct because he has scientific credentials, he must know what he is talking about. You probably read about it from Dr. Simoncic's perspective, but you don't actually understand medicine. You take his perspective because you assume the government is wrong in every way, and he offers an alternative that sounds good and satisfies your understanding of the situation. This is why you disagree with me and I disagree with you so much. I see you making this assumption of the government, you see me as falling pray to the government.
One big difference is you allow yourself to dismiss science that disagrees with your perspective. I do not allow myself to do that (or at least I try my hardest not to). This is exactly the point I tried to make earlier in this thread.
I expect you to even dismiss what I am saying now as me being controlled by the government or some child with a lot to learn. You won't honestly consider what I am saying here. It is the pattern you have shown so far. Maybe you'll accuse me of being a member of the government sent here to sow discord and confusion from your truth or something like that. You might respond with hostility if you react without thinking, or your might respond with your condescending tone of a superior being that knows what's what talking down to a naïve child if you retain control of your emotions and don't take undue offense to what I am saying.
I have never said the government is not corrupt. I have no doubt that certain parts of the government are corrupt, however I don't know which ones. That's why I'm often skeptical. It's also part of the reason why I don't like politics. You talk about restricted thought, well that's the way I see you. I'm not saying I'm not, it makes sense that any time you have structured thought, you will have restrictions, but that's the way we as humans exist. There's no way around that. I recognize my biggest restriction is in the way I analyze information. I'm currently exploring the concept of manipulating that fact.