What is conpiracy thinking for you?

6th

mysterious wrote: »

They respeat words, as repeating things enough makes people believe.

Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.

Seriously, you state everything as FACT but if you cant back it up with hard facts you cant expect people to put any faith in it. You believe what you do purely because of your life experiences, if others have not had the same experiences how do you expect them to come to the same conclusion as you?

mysterious

6th wrote: »

Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.
Mysterious, other peoples "opinions" carry as much weight as your "opinions" do.

Seriously, you state everything as FACT but if you cant back it up with hard facts you cant expect people to put any faith in it. You believe what you do purely because of your life experiences, if others have not had the same experiences how do you expect them to come to the same conclusion as you?

Of course I agree. I didnt say it was fact.

But if you actually see what I said, and take it on board, and go watch fox news, and see if what I said holds true, I'm sure it will be clear to you.

They will repeat and drum reptitions. in order to indoctrinate the viewer's thinking. It's no secret of opinion. I also assummed that most people would know this already. This isn't life experience, this is just someone having awareness and cop on.

6th I'm perfectly ok, with someone dissagreeing with me. I've learned that some people will hate you no matter what when you give an opinion. It doesn't bother me. If I give a fact I will back it up. But alot of the time I do talk about experiences, I don't expect everyone to believe them or take it as fact. i like to talk about many aspects to many topics. Not just fact fact fact. Facts are very important. But not everything in life is fact or proven.

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

Of course I agree. I didnt say it was fact.

But if you actually see what I said, and take it on board, and go watch fox news, and see if what I said holds true, I'm sure it will be clear to you.

They will repeat and drum reptitions. in order to indoctrinate the viewer's thinking. It's no secret of opinion.

6th I'm perfectly ok, with someone dissagreeing with me. I've learned that some people will hate you no matter what when you give an opinion. It doesn't bother me.

Bill O'Reilly is not always wrong either. He does ask questions, maybe not the type you like? But he does.

I don't like the guy but he does expose scandals. Fair enough, they tend to be Democratic scandals! :cool:

Which means we need him more now to keep the Democrats on their toes.

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

Bill O'Reilly is not always wrong either. He does ask questions, maybe not the type you like? But he does.

I don't like the guy but he does expose scandals. Fair enough, they tend to be Democratic scandals! :cool:

Which means we need him more now to keep the Democrats on their toes.

It this stuff, that is like junk to the mind.
But I do agree with you on what you said. But honestly do you think all these scandals and trivial REP vs DEM nonsense is good for us to watch and retain.

I think not

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Are you taking the piss
The American media do it all the time.

Example?

mysterious wrote: »

It's how Obama got in. You obviously don't see how right wing and left wing work. They work together. They do reverse psycology, they do victim roles, bully roles, distraction from the victim roles, attraction to the victim/bully roles.

So they work together despite the fact they have completely different goals?
Why would they need to do "reverse psychology" if they control the media?

mysterious wrote: »

They steer attention to one thing, and invoke the people's reaction
They steer attention to the other side, to make sure people don't react to another aspect.

Yea you do know if a journalist purposefully tries to evoke an emotion to sway opinion it's not journalism? In fact it's kinda what your doing in those long rambly posts.

mysterious wrote: »

I'm telling you they have mastered this.
They use certain words, phrases all the time.
They respeat words, as repeating things enough makes people believe.

Like?

mysterious wrote: »

Fox news even helped Obama to get in

Cause it had nothing to do with his election positions or the disillusion with the republican party?

mysterious wrote: »

I can't believe in 2009 people are thinking this is not the case:rolleyes:

Might be because you offer a really bad argument for it.

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

It this stuff, that is like junk to the mind.
But I do agree with you on what you said. But honestly do you think all these scandals and trivial REP vs DEM nonsense is good for us to watch and retain.

I think not

Didn't say that.

O'Reilly exposes some scandals and cheats. Is that a bad thing?

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

Didn't say that.

O'Reilly exposes some scandals and cheats. Is that a bad thing?

No but, from my perspective, this is how fox projects itself.

Does and shows bad examples, gives bad examples of other people, other topics, other countries.

It's not a bad thing to show a scandal. But for a news network, to put all it's energy to focus, on showing bad things doing bad things, projecting bad things, opening rumours, stirring rumours and of this kind

Tells me alot about fox and not just about the scandals.

It's like a person who spread rumours all the time. They say bad stuff about people all the time, people never percieve or see their own demons.

Sofa_King Good

Soooooooooooooooo...No skeptics prepared to show their hand and say what conspiracy thinking means to them? Nobody?

Penn

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Do I believe everything the government says? Of course not. I rarely pay any heed to whatever warmongering either side is blabbering on about. But (and this ties into what the thread is about) I don't believe in the vast majority of conspiracy theories. It seems that whenever anything happens, conspiracy theorists will claim its all part of the NWOs plans for.. etc, with no real basis, just loads of hearsay and conjecture.

Personally, I love conspiracy theories which give rise to great discussions using logic, facts and evidence. But some of the ones I've seen on these boards are just ridiculous

Already have SKG

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Soooooooooooooooo...No skeptics prepared to show their hand and say what conspiracy thinking means to them? Nobody?

Well to be honest I have no set view. I think a lot of it has to do with peoples place in the world and how they feel about it. Sometimes people feel somewhat helpless in our modern world and this reflects in the need to believe, even when evidence to the contrary is shown. Personally I look at each item in here or the news stories I read or whatever and see what I think at the time. It varies but what doesn't vary is I'm not going to believe what someone tells me just cause they say it's true, they need to prove it to at least some degree. And the most tenuous of connections just don't cut it.

I was on the receiving end of a malicious story when I was younger, someone thought it would be very funny to tell everyone something completely untrue about me. It amazed me at the time just how willing people were to believe almost anything especially if its bad. So I got years of **** from people I didn't even know for something that I had nothing to do with whatsoever. I know people lie, I know only too well, I know they lie for many different reasons and I don't make assumptions about it.

I'm seen as debunker here by some I'm sure but all I want is logic and evidence and generally that is supplied by the 'debunkers'. Personally I'd call them and myself sceptics in that we are not so predisposed to having a side by our personalities we just hopefully follow the evidence.

That okay?

Veni Vedi Vici

meglome wrote: »

I was on the receiving end of a malicious story when I was younger, someone thought it would be very funny to tell everyone something completely untrue about me. It amazed me at the time just how willing people were to believe almost anything especially if its bad.

That's kind of sad.

I'd be more interested in whats conspiracies theories some of the major skeptics around here believe in since each of us are aware of what we do not believe in.

I know its a little off-topic but it would offer an insight into each skeptics 'conspiracy thinking' and would help us to get to know each other better.

meglome

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

That's kind of sad.

I'd be more interested in whats conspiracies theories some of the major skeptics around here believe in since each of us are aware of what we do not believe in.

I know its a little off-topic but it would offer an insight into each skeptics 'conspiracy thinking' and would help us to get to know each other better.

Not sad, better me than someone who couldn't take it. Interestingly I think it gave me a better outlook on life, not intended I'm sure.

I said it before, I think there may be many conspiracies. But I think these conspiracies will involve small numbers of people doing 'smaller' things. It might involve price fixing such as was discovered with airlines in the recent past. It might involve getting laws changed to better suit some companies. I'm sure I could think of several if I spent some time thinking about it. It's a shame that people latch onto big events and seek out conspiracy when many things less significant but actually happening may go unnoticed.

Penn

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

That's kind of sad.

I'd be more interested in whats conspiracies theories some of the major skeptics around here believe in since each of us are aware of what we do not believe in.

I know its a little off-topic but it would offer an insight into each skeptics 'conspiracy thinking' and would help us to get to know each other better.

As I said, I haven't been reading these pages long, but a recent theory which springs to mind was the one about the contaminated vaccines. I thought that that thread was well laid out, linked to reputable sources and is believable. Shocking and disgusting if true, but believable. I felt it was an excellent conspiracy theory.

Sofa_King Good

meglome wrote: »

I'm seen as debunker here by some I'm sure but all I want is logic and evidence and generally that is supplied by the 'debunkers'. Personally I'd call them and myself sceptics in that we are not so predisposed to having a side by our personalities we just hopefully follow the evidence.

That okay?

yeah, exactly what I was looking for. I think honesty like this can go a long way towards any mutual understanding and cut down on the (over) sensitivity and animosity towards each other. It is a lot easier to relate to someone if you know what they believe in rather than the infinite possibilites of what they don't.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

As I said, I haven't been reading these pages long, but a recent theory which springs to mind was the one about the contaminated vaccines. I thought that that thread was well laid out, linked to reputable sources and is believable. Shocking and disgusting if true, but believable. I felt it was an excellent conspiracy theory.

I'd be interested Paddy to know why you'd believe this over others specifically.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Personally I'd call them and myself sceptics in that we are not so predisposed to having a side by our personalities we just hopefully follow the evidence.

You are predisposed to 'having a side' by your personalities. You cannot escape your personality when forming beliefs.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

You are predisposed to 'having a side' by your personalities. You cannot escape your personality when forming beliefs.

I believe I said not so predisposed.

I notice that the so called debunkers don't take set their views in stone before they've seen evidence. But many CT's in here seem to believe the worst by default. Interestingly I think you're proving my point.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

I believe I said not so predisposed.

I notice that the so called debunkers don't take set their views in stone before they've seen evidence. But many CT's in here seem to believe the worst by default. Interestingly I think you're proving my point.

So you think anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory has a personality disorder? Or some other personality aspect which predisposes them to believing in a conspiracy? Interesting that you do not see the same correllation with debunkers though. Albeit, psychobabble is by it's nature concerned with generalisations.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

I believe I said not so predisposed.

I notice that the so called debunkers don't take set their views in stone before they've seen evidence. But many CT's in here seem to believe the worst by default. Interestingly I think you're proving my point.

Meglome, that is just redicoulous, that is incredibly closed minded.

You make it sound like C.Ts wake up BAM and decide to create a Conspriacy theory because they are dysfunctional.

There is (and I've told you this before) there is nothing wrong with fiddling with conspiracy theorys. It actually shows, that your able and willing to find out yourself what is being percieved in this reality. It shows intellegence, as people are questioning what is displayed in front of them.

If you don't believe in Conspiracy theorys, then who do you believe, what everyone else says, and how normal this world is. If this world was normal as you seem to percieve it to be. You can be sure there would be very little conspiracy theorys out there.

Did you know that the official story by the government is a conspiracy theory? It hasn't been proven as to who did it:P

But again I have to say, your very selective in what you want to beleive.

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I'd be interested Paddy to know why you'd believe this over others specifically.

Well, I'll keep it brief since its a little off-topic, and there is a thread for it.

Basically, Its believable. A vaccine company releasing a virus in order to profit from selling vaccines. Its plausible. Obviously I have no idea about what rules and precautions they take to prevent such things occuring, but if the rules are as stringent as they're supposed to be, and are properly enforced, there should be no way for this to have accidently occured. As I said in that thread, it'll be interesting to see what results an investigation into this yields.

But this theory was plausible, linked to a reputable source and is logically sound. The conspiracy is that the company did this to make money. To me, that is believable. Sickening, but believable.

With a lot of theories here, people claim that the reason behind it is the NWO are ... etc etc. I'm not saying there is no NWO or similar. I've seen no proof that there is, but I've also seen no proof that there isn't. But in my own personal opinion, I don't think that there is. So in a lot of cases, once I see a mention of the NWO in these conspiracy theories, I pretty much just ignore it. Maybe I'm right to, or maybe I've been brainwashed by them. Either way, I'm happy in my ignorance/genius-ness

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I've also seen no proof that there isn't. But in my own personal opinion, I don't think that there is. So in a lot of cases, once I see a mention of the NWO in these conspiracy theories, I pretty much just ignore it. Maybe I'm right to, or maybe I've been brainwashed by them. Either way, I'm happy in my ignorance/genius-ness

Do you need to be told blue in the face.
Do you understand it's actually obvious, simple and widely spoken by the elite.

The previous elites have said the words. Why are you completely ignorant of this fact. Look at the world and pay attention and you might actually see whats going on with the layout and sequence of events that lead to a NWO

disasters
9/11
war on terror
Rise in nazis brainwashing
Lisbon treaty
Super Europe
Strippng of the US consitution
Unstable oil markets
Behaviour of recent US governemts, are showing anti democrazy.
Global money system, inducted by the US, to keep control of the world currency.
Martial law
Governemtn drummng of fear into their own people
History books even say it,
Rome wanted it,
Summerians wanted it,
Nimrod ruler invisioned it
Hitler also wanted it
All the US puppets wanted it

NWO, is bascially the elite wanting global control.

Do you not like look around you? the simplicity of it is blue in your face:rolleyes:

EDIT
Why do the governments want flouride in our water, toothpaste, and now food products. Do you really think they give a f*** about your teeth. NWO is about control, and they are creating this by all of the above ways, whether you like to admit to that or not.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

So you think anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory has a personality disorder? Or some other personality aspect which predisposes them to believing in a conspiracy?

Well I was somewhat implying that I'll admit. Can you give me a better reason why people assume the conspiracy and don't wait for any evidence? I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't discuss the possible conspiracy but taking it as truth without backup is not something a real sceptic would do IMHO.

Kernel wrote: »

Interesting that you do not see the same correllation with debunkers though. Albeit, psychobabble is by it's nature concerned with generalisations.

I do see the correlation but I also see in practice that these so called debunkers go carefully through the evidence so even if their initial stance is disbelief they carefully weight it up. And again a real sceptic (IMHO) should take...well... the sceptical stance really. We know governments lie but we also know that many in the so called truth movement also lie, we know both sides have an agenda... I think a real sceptic would see this.

6th

Mysterious banned for 1 week.

K-9

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

A vaccine company releasing a virus in order to profit from selling vaccines. Its plausible. Obviously I have no idea about what rules and precautions they take to prevent such things occuring, but if the rules are as stringent as they're supposed to be, and are properly enforced, there should be no way for this to have accidently occured. As I said in that thread, it'll be interesting to see what results an investigation into this yields.

But this theory was plausible, linked to a reputable source and is logically sound. The conspiracy is that the company did this to make money. To me, that is believable. Sickening, but believable.

With a lot of theories here, people claim that the reason behind it is the NWO are ... etc etc. I'm not saying there is no NWO or similar. I've seen no proof that there is, but I've also seen no proof that there isn't. But in my own personal opinion, I don't think that there is. So in a lot of cases, once I see a mention of the NWO in these conspiracy theories, I pretty much just ignore it. Maybe I'm right to, or maybe I've been brainwashed by them. Either way, I'm happy in my ignorance/genius-ness

The vaccine one was good, then again I think the idea of pharmaceutical companies as the bad guys is widespread, we've seen/suspected dodgy practices with them before, so it isn't a stretch to believe something like this.

I would be suspicious of secret services, comes from knowledge of their practices in NI and reading too many spy novels. John LeCarre is excellent at describing the politics and personalities involved with them and he also wrote about the pharmaceutical companies in the Constant Gardener.

Easy targets I suppose, anything unknown or with power outside our control, we get suspicious.

So I'd be sceptical, but open minded exactly because of what happened in NI. The only thing that has never been proven about shoot to kill etc. is how far it went. Did the UK Govt. know and officially and directly sanction it? Personally No, I don't think so. However, I think they didn't want to know. A blind eye was turned to the secret services, special branch.
Govt., knew what these guys were capable off, but didn't want to officialy know.

So, I'd be sceptical of CT's but also sceptical of Govt. etc. I think even CT'ers need to be sceptical of their own theories and that often is the problem.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

With a lot of theories here, people claim that the reason behind it is the NWO are ... etc etc. I'm not saying there is no NWO or similar. I've seen no proof that there is, but I've also seen no proof that there isn't. But in my own personal opinion, I don't think that there is. So in a lot of cases, once I see a mention of the NWO in these conspiracy theories, I pretty much just ignore it. Maybe I'm right to, or maybe I've been brainwashed by them. Either way, I'm happy in my ignorance/genius-ness

I appreciate your humility here and I am not trying to be antagonistic but isn't the best way
to attain the truth is obtain multiple sources from both sides?

There is a lot more compelling evidence on man made viruses, eugenics, corporate corruption etc that you may not have come across before brcause you choose not to.

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I appreciate your humility here and I am not trying to be antagonistic but isn't the best way
to attain the truth is obtain multiple sources from both sides?

There is a lot more compelling evidence on man made viruses, eugenics, corporate corruption etc that you may not have come across before brcause you choose not to.

Thats a fair point, and in a way I agree completely. With regards to the NWO, as I said, I'm kinda new here. Before I came here, I've heard of the NWO and stuff, but I've never researched it. But since I came here, I have still yet to see indisputable evidence that the NWO or 'The Elites' are real. Do I think heads of large corpoations have a little more power and pull than they should? Of course. But that doesn't mean they're all conspiring to control the worlds governments. Or at least to me, it doesn't.

Like I said, I haven't researched both sides. In fact I haven't researched my own side. I have seen no evidence which says that an NWO does not exist. But in my opinion, the burden is on the theorists to prove that they exist, and so far, here, this hasn't been done. There has been speculation and stuff, but any time I have asked for evidence, it hasn't been provided. Take the post that mysterious got banned for. His closing line in trying to convince me that the NWO exist was

Why do the governments want flouride in our water, toothpaste, and now food products. Do you really think they give a f*** about your teeth. NWO is about control, and they are creating this by all of the above ways, whether you like to admit to that or not.

There are things to suggest an NWO exist. There are things to suggest that aliens exist. But so far I've seen no proof that either do. And I'm not going to waste my time researching them. But if anybody wants to show me concrete evidence of either, I will believe it. I have to.

Sofa_King Good

To be honest NWO is not a term I like at all. Its a term I use here for simplicity purposes, a kind of catch-all umbrella term. I think Alex Jones has given it so many negative connatations with his brash, abrupt style. Also, I think that there are so many bull**** CT's that it lessens genuine ones. I wouldn't consider myself a blind believer either, thats a scary area with cultish dimensions. And I am not open to CT's because I am paranoid or that I feel hopeless in the world and I need a boogey man to blame to make myself feel better. I think the only difference is that people ask different questions of a situation.

As far as proof I could write a fully sourced book in various different areas but it'd only be speculation and my interpretation at best. If I did have proof I'd probably have dissapeared by now.

K-9

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

As far as proof I could write a fully sourced book in various different areas but it'd only be speculation and my interpretation at best. If I did have proof I'd probably have dissapeared by now.

Most of the conspiracies that outed had whistle blowers.

Is there any with this NWO stuff?

Whistle blowers are your best proof.

Sofa_King Good

K-9 wrote: »

Most of the conspiracies that outed had whistle blowers.

Is there any with this NWO stuff?

Whistle blowers are your best proof.

Kay Griggs, Vanunu (?) , victor ostrovsky, david shayler, david kelly.

Its not that simple though as it still takes a leap of faith

K-9

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Kay Griggs, Vanunu (?) , victor ostrovsky, david shayler, david kelly.

Its not that simple though as it still takes a leap of faith

When I get a chance, I'll look up those.

Always admire whistle blowers. Guys who often put their life in danger to expose conspiracies. The RUC got loads of flack in the 70/80's and rightly so, but it was often officers who exposed the cover ups, at great personal risk, even risk of death.

Sofa_King Good

K-9 wrote: »

When I get a chance, I'll look up those.

Always admire whistle blowers. Guys who often put their life in danger to expose conspiracies. The RUC got loads of flack in the 70/80's and rightly so, but it was often officers who exposed the cover ups, at great personal risk, even risk of death.

yeah me too. I was a source a good few times for a mate who works for a national paper, dont think my life was ever in danger though.
Ostrovsky is ex Mossad, Shayler is ex MI5 or 6, Vanunu is a former Israeli Nucllear technician, his probably the most interesting story, Kelly is the British WMD authority, and Kay Griggs is the widow ? of an US naval commander or something.

nyarlothothep

Another facet of conspiracy thinking I notice is that its incredibly bleak. Someone pointed this out as I recall ages ago in relation to a post, was a very good point. I mean it assumes the absolute worst in elites, and true they behave like scoundrels, but it takes this to a new level, in that said elites are devil worshiping baby eating pathological monsters bent on the destruction of mankind. Surely elites are complex by nature in the sense that you have different people of different persuasions, they can't all be in the same club and as a result I don't see how any one fruity little club, ie Legatus, can get their way with respect to how the big decisions are made across all of the elite world. Another thing which is gloomy is that it assumes that elites are all powerful. The end of everything seems inevitable according the conspiratorial mindset. The recession is certainly bad, fuels the fire of doom mongering.

K-9

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

yeah me too. I was a source a good few times for a mate who works for a national paper, dont think my life was ever in danger though.

yep, but these guys did risk their lives. If we believe MI5, Special Branch would shoot to kill, what would stop them killing a RUC Dissident and passing it of as IRA etc.?

IRA say No? Sure it's the IRA!

Loxosceles

The Conspiracy is defined by the Church of the Subgenius as being those who are out to take your inborn universe-given Slack by any means necessary. Religion tries to take your Slack by telling you that it's wrong to feel good and making you afraid of hell. Old white guys in government take your Slack by trying to control your right to speak out and telling the cops to mess with you if you don't look a certain way. Anyone can try to take your Slack by trying to make you, as an adult graced with free will, do what you don't want to do, and have not chosen of free will to apply to your own life under your own inborn wisdom. But if they succeed, they don't have your Slack, just the illusory victory of thinking they took yours away.

And the Conspiracy is those who play along with that game, trying to control the actions, views, voice, habits, dress, beliefs and nature of other Slack-enabled Yetis who are essentially minding their own business, doing their own thing and doing no harm.

If you have real Slack, you can sell anything, but you never have to buy anything you don't want off of anyone you don't like- unless it's to resell it back to them at 1000% profit and make them think they got a deal of a lifetime.

For a much better explanation, clicky here.

http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html