Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
Who_Goes_Blue said:
Roman Rhodes said:
PurplePenguin said:
I think you should use data newer than 2012. Gallup are using their own “well being index” - would this be acceptable for peer reviewed journals?
It’s also skewed by the German female results.
I’m not sure why you chose that particular google result - as it misses the point somewhat and wasn’t the gotcha you make it out to be.
This shows you do not accurately vet your data but are able to come to a conclusion about me using such data.
In essence you are as fallible as the rest of us.
It's pretty obvious you've just been watching the latest video from grifter-in-chief John Campbell promoting the dire book "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health" by anti-vax conspiracy theorist Robert F Kennedy Jnr.It’s also skewed by the German female results.
I’m not sure why you chose that particular google result - as it misses the point somewhat and wasn’t the gotcha you make it out to be.
This shows you do not accurately vet your data but are able to come to a conclusion about me using such data.
In essence you are as fallible as the rest of us.
Some apposite comments that could be applied to many conspiracy theorists in the Wiki article on the book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anthony_Fau...
Particularly: Infectious disease specialist Michael Osterholm says that Kennedy's anti-vaccine disinformation is effective “because it’s portrayed to the public with graphs and figures and what appears to be scientific data. He has perfected the art of illusion of fact.”
PurplePenguin said:
Roman Rhodes said:
PurplePenguin said:
I think you should use data newer than 2012. Gallup are using their own “well being index” - would this be acceptable for peer reviewed journals?
It’s also skewed by the German female results.
I’m not sure why you chose that particular google result - as it misses the point somewhat and wasn’t the gotcha you make it out to be.
This shows you do not accurately vet your data but are able to come to a conclusion about me using such data.
In essence you are as fallible as the rest of us.
It's pretty obvious you've just been watching the latest video from grifter-in-chief John Campbell promoting the dire book "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health" by anti-vax conspiracy theorist Robert F Kennedy Jnr.It’s also skewed by the German female results.
I’m not sure why you chose that particular google result - as it misses the point somewhat and wasn’t the gotcha you make it out to be.
This shows you do not accurately vet your data but are able to come to a conclusion about me using such data.
In essence you are as fallible as the rest of us.
Some apposite comments that could be applied to many conspiracy theorists in the Wiki article on the book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anthony_Fau...
Particularly: Infectious disease specialist Michael Osterholm says that Kennedy's anti-vaccine disinformation is effective “because it’s portrayed to the public with graphs and figures and what appears to be scientific data. He has perfected the art of illusion of fact.”
Who_Goes_Blue said:
AW111 said:
Who_Goes_Blue said:
AW111 said:
Some people think this thread is about conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy theorists think this thread is for them to peddle their deluded misinformation to a wider audience.
Fortunately all the smarty pants in here wont fall for itConspiracy theorists think this thread is for them to peddle their deluded misinformation to a wider audience.
PurplePenguin said:
It’s good to have an open mind. You views appear to have a grounding in “accepting the peer reviewed data” end of the spectrum whereas I am slightly more sceptical given recent events. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter .
Your choice of the Gallup poll is interesting because it shows how tricky it is to get accurate data - that article certainly wasn’t ONS level.
One’s own biases inevitably come in to the equation.
I can’t discuss anything such as Roman posted because he has made a decision about what I think but that was done on limited data and if it doesn’t fit the agenda of the thread, there will be a pile on.
At least you post in a respectful manner if somewhat patronising at times - many posters just jump in without engaging their brain - it’s amusing.
Of course it is. You're still taking yourself far too seriously it seems.Your choice of the Gallup poll is interesting because it shows how tricky it is to get accurate data - that article certainly wasn’t ONS level.
One’s own biases inevitably come in to the equation.
I can’t discuss anything such as Roman posted because he has made a decision about what I think but that was done on limited data and if it doesn’t fit the agenda of the thread, there will be a pile on.
At least you post in a respectful manner if somewhat patronising at times - many posters just jump in without engaging their brain - it’s amusing.
Class66 said:
PurplePenguin said:
Where does one find these “fun” anecdotes? Is there a secret anti-CTer squad searching constantly?
Please don’t post too many of these fun stories as my sides are hurting from laughing
Most CTists aren’t known for their sense of humour.Please don’t post too many of these fun stories as my sides are hurting from laughing
They take themselves far too seriously.
RemarkLima said:
The Selfish Gene said:
genuine question as an interested reader.
Has there never been a CT that has come true then? Ever?
If not, then I guess the title is fair and all people who believe in a CT(s) are a bit thick.
If , ever, there has been a conspiracy theory that came true.......then surely proof by contradiction means that they are not a bit thick, and there is a possibility that one, some or all CTs have the potential to be true.
L + 2 =2n + 2 = 2(n + 1)
It seems to me, accusing all people who believe in a CT as being thick, and wrong, shows a weird lack of thinking that any possibility outside of a official narrative has to be true. Which surely we all have seen personal examples of people telling lies for personal gain.
I'd posted many pages back about P2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_DueHas there never been a CT that has come true then? Ever?
If not, then I guess the title is fair and all people who believe in a CT(s) are a bit thick.
If , ever, there has been a conspiracy theory that came true.......then surely proof by contradiction means that they are not a bit thick, and there is a possibility that one, some or all CTs have the potential to be true.
L + 2 =2n + 2 = 2(n + 1)
It seems to me, accusing all people who believe in a CT as being thick, and wrong, shows a weird lack of thinking that any possibility outside of a official narrative has to be true. Which surely we all have seen personal examples of people telling lies for personal gain.
Very clandestine, very powerful, government within a government type stuff and did very much happen. Obviously, a wild conspiracy theory until proven true... I think it was dismissed here, as it isn't UK based and didn't get much coverage.
RemarkLima said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Well I haven't looked back so no idea how this was viewed earlier but, bold above, you're rather spinning it. Italy, the home of the mafia, freemasonry and right-wing military plotters are hardly the stuff of conspiracy theories are they?
Maybe... But was commented as one of the great modern conspiracy theory's by Tom Holland, who is pretty qualified I'd like to think.The fact that a country was ran by a clandestine organisation isn't enough to make the bar of a conspiracy? And wasn't public so was just a theory until proven?
I really have no idea what you want? What metric makes it a true conspiracy theory? As once proven, it's obviously no longer a theory.
Are you just seeking cowboys being probed by aliens or something?
I don’t “want” anything but it would be nice if it was accepted that corruption, cover ups, incompetence, plotting against democracy and general skullduggery are not in and of themselves conspiracy theories. Someone who isn’t a conspiracy theorist doesn’t simply believe that everybody acts honestly and only in the interests of the common man.
The difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory has already been explained in the thread.
RemarkLima said:
LF5335 said:
Let’s try this again for you.
Was it a conspiracy? Yes
Was it proven to exist? Yes
Was it a conspiracy theory? Can’t tell from the link.
Just because something shadowy exists does not mean it is a conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory, then there would need to be more than somebody out there saying “OMG, there’s a shadowy organisation running everything”. There needs to be some correlation to this organisation, otherwise it’s just a wild stab in the dark.
Right. So you agree it's a conspiracy unlike RR who seemed to think it was just a bit of corruption.Was it a conspiracy? Yes
Was it proven to exist? Yes
Was it a conspiracy theory? Can’t tell from the link.
Just because something shadowy exists does not mean it is a conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory, then there would need to be more than somebody out there saying “OMG, there’s a shadowy organisation running everything”. There needs to be some correlation to this organisation, otherwise it’s just a wild stab in the dark.
But you think no-one ever said or thought "OMG! There's some conspiracy here?!" - because if not, how was it found out? When Roberto Calvi was hung from Blackfriars Bridge people just said "That's normal that is... Nothing to see here".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi
You seem to be just looking to point and laugh at people saying s
t about space lasers, aliens and chem trails... The question was "Where any conspiracy theories proven to be real", I gave an example and now RR and you are arguing over the semantics of it just being corruption and no conspiracy, or that it wasn't being thrown around at the time as a theory!Given the condescending tone (my bold above), you also appear to have an opinion of me. I can't see how we'll bridge that gap and can't see what any further discussion on this will bring :cheers:
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff